ae κ( Ὄπ ας μ δ ie te Tal | 
‘ ; ee ἮΝ 
5 4 
- , 
' 
wt 
is int 
' 
aid + 
' 
fe Fy 
. 
7 ἢ 
+ ᾿ 
» 
͵ 
~~! 
' 
« 
“Ὁ ᾿ 
a 
ΓΕ 
7 “ 
‘ 
͵ % 
ἢ 
ῃ - 
- 
. 
4 id 
ὧν τς 
Ce ᾿ ΠῚ 4 , 
τ ἢ Η . “ - + 


διδελο Rod τ 


ἤν δ Ὁ" aA ΣΝ 
ae ov parva ta 


oe: |e mS oe fe 


ΕΥ ΡῈ 


—s 
, 2 2, oe ee Se ee eee Se 0 


ge 


ne tn ah δα διε 


5 


᾿ 


ΚΡ τὰν 8 me ry, 


“£ go bes. 


ee: 


Sie ΣΎ fens 


> 


Searo rt ee 


SS Sti 


* 


άχτοτ; 


aa 


Ἢ 
7 


4, ‘a ΝΣ 
Sa 103, 8S 


ὍΝ 
Pf 
a 


oy ow 


nea πον. φ 
Ὡς 5 


AN INQUIRY INTO 


THE CHARACTER AND 
AUTHORSHIP 


OF THE 


FOURTH GOSPEL 


BY 


Vi 
JAMES DRUMMOND 
M.A., LL.D., Hon, Litt.D. 


PRINCIPAL OF MANCHESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD 


Ὁ δι᾽ ὑπομνημάτων λαλῶν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἀφοσιοῦται, ταῦτα 
κεκραγὼς ἐγγράφως. “Μὴ κέρδους ἕνεκα, μὴ κενοδοξίας 
χάριν, μὴ προσπαθείᾳ νικᾶσθαι, μὴ φόβῳ δουλοῦσθαι, μὴ ἡδονῇ 
ἐπαίρεσθαι... .. Δεῖ δὲ, ὡς οἷόν τε, τὸν κύριον μιμεῖσθαι 


Published for the Hibbert Trustees 


NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
153-157 FIFTH AVENUE 
1904 


CHAPTER I 
CONTENTS AND PLAN OF THE GOSPEL 


_ BEFORE we proceed to more difficult and controverted 
questions, we had better make ourselves acquainted with the 
contents and plan of the work. ‘These are confessedly 

- determined, not by a purely biographical, but by a theological 

interest. Indeed, the writer himself expressly says so, and 

a claims to do no more than give a selection of ‘signs’ caleu- 

ns lated to establish his position.2 Accordingly, when we view 

the structure of the book, we find that it is laid out on a 

* much more definite plan than we should anticipate from the 

Ἷ apparent artlessness.of the style. It begins with a prologue, 

" setting forth in brief terms certain great theological con- 

᾿ » ceptions. This prologue is generally supposed to embrace the 

ik first eighteen verses, but Reuss? limits it to the first five, and 

ke it is undoubtedly true that the history begins in verse 6, 

. _ with the mission of John the Baptist,* and is resumed in 
"verse 15. There is, however, such a preponderance of 

θαλίαι statement, leading up to the sentences which 

δ describe the nature of the Christian revelation, that we 


must admit a large element of truth in the ordinary view. 


ay we may say that the first eighteen verses form a_ 
preface, which sets forth _ the fundamental ideas of the 
ve ΕΣ 11. ak, 50. 3. Gesch. ἊΝ heil. Schriften N.T., 1887, § 218. 
᾿ς * Compare ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος with Mark’s ἐγένετο "Iwdyns, i. 4. 

; 3 


4 CONTENTS AND PLAN 


work, and is divided into two parts, the purely theological 
and the historico-theological. 

The work may from this point be divided into three great 
sections : The relation of Christ to the world, i i. το- ἸΟ-ΧΙ. σο; 
his relation to his disciples, xiii.—xvii.; the history of the 
passion — and resurrection, xviii-xx. To all appearance the 
book ended here: ; but another chapter is added, which we 
must regard as an appendix, whether by the same author or 
by a subsequent editor. 

The first of these larger sections falls into two principal 
sub-divisions. In the first of these we are told of the growing 
faith in Christ, 1. 19-iv. 54; in the second, of the growing 
opposition to his claims, v.-xii. Faith in him is first. 
suggested by the testimony of the Baptist, who, however, is 
not himself said to have believed, 1. 19-36. Owing to this 
testimony a small group of disciples is drawn to him, who 
recognise him as the Messiah and the Son of God, 1. 37-52. 
He now proceeds to Cana, where he manifests his glory by 
a sign, and his disciples believe on him, ii. 1-11. After a 
few days at Capernaum he goes to Jerusalem, and cleanses 
the Temple, and many believe on his name; but Jesus does 
not trust himself to them, ii. 12-25. We are now introduced 
to different types of character among those to whom Jesus 
appealed. In Nicodemus we have the learned Rabbi, who is — 
favourably disposed, but hardly open to the reception of new 
ideas. The narrative passes off into reflections, and we are 
not told whether he believed or not, ill. 1-21. In the country 
of Judea all men come to him; but details vanish in an 
account of the relations of the Baptist to J esus, 111. 22-36. | 
Next there is a brief ministry in Samaria, where many 
believe on him, iv. 1-42. Finally, the Galileans received 
him, and he healed the son of a nobleman who believed, 
with all his house, iv. 43-54. From this point Jesus appears _ 


ACCOUNT OF THE MINISTRY 5 


in conflict with the unbelieving world. The opposition begins 
in Jerusalem, owing to his curing an impotent man on the 
Sabbath, . and declaring that in doing so he followed the 
example of his Father. In the address which follows, the 
ideas of Father and Son, of death and life, are dwelt upon; 
and unbelief is traced to seeking glory from one another 
instead of God, v. The scene now shifts once more to the 
north. After an account of the feeding of the five thousand 
and the walking on the sea, there is a long discourse, delivered 
at Capernaum, which is founded on the former miracle, and 
dwells on Jesus as the bread of life. The figure is worked 
out in such startling language that many of his disciples 
leave him; but Peter confesses him to be the holy one of 
God (according to the most approved reading), vi. In the 
four following chapters we have a narrative of Christ’s 
controversies with the Jews at Jerusalem, on occasion of 
_ the feasts of tabernacles and of dedication. Jesus appears 
especially as the light of the world, and in illustration of this 
opens the eyes of a blind man. Though many of the crowd 
believe, the opposition to his claims deepens, and he finally 
q escapes from an attempt to seize him. Beyond Jordan, how- 
ever, many came to him, and believed on him. These events 
are followed by the great sign, the raising of Lazarus, which 
_ proved Jesus to be the resurrection and the life, and con- 
_ vineed the rulers that they must put him to death, lest all 
| _ should believe on him, xi. 1-53. Jesus withdraws for a time, - 
4 Xi. 54-57, but soon returns to prepare for the end, and make 
y a last appeal to the blind eyes and hard hearts that so per- 
i sistently misunderstood him, xii. Verses 37-50 are a kind of 
_ summing-up of this first section. 
e We pass now into the quiet retreats of private and sacred 
‘ fellowship. It is not necessary at present to analyse those 
_ exquisite chapters, to which, I suppose, the Gospel chiefly owes 


7 


6 CONTENTS AND PLAN 


its undying attractiveness and power. From the symbolic 
act of humility and love to the sublime prayer of consecration, 
we are in a region of holy peace and lofty communion, in 
which we have transcended the limits of the world and time, 
and have entered that eternal life which flows for ever from 
the Father upon those who apprehend in faith the spirit of 
the Son. 

The narrative of the passion and resurrection also we may 
leave without analysis. It moves on with simple grandeur to 
the close, and the theological aim is less apparent than in the 
earlier portions of the work; but some important sayings 
have been recorded, and the fact of a bodily resurrection is 
dwelt on with peculiar emphasis. 


CHAPTER II 
COMPARISON OF THE GOSPEL WITH THE SYNOPTICS 


THE foregoing chapter has presented an outline of the plan 
and contents of the Fourth Gospel. This word ‘Gospel’ at 


_ once reminds us that it is one of a group of four works bearing 


similar titles; and it becomes important to ask, What is its 
relation to the other three? For our answer to this question 
must inevitably affect to some extent our judgment of its . 
character and origin. Each Gospel has its own characteristics, 
and contains more or less which is peculiar to itself, and 
omits more or less which is contained in one or more of the 
others. Still, there is a family resemblance connecting the 
first three, which justifies us in treating them together as one 
class, whereas the fourth has such marked differences of type — 


_ that we are obliged to place it in a class by itself. At present 


we will describe the leading differences, simply as facts to be 


noted, without suggesting any theory to explain them. 


_ First, the duration and the scene of Christ’s ministry are 


not the same as in the Synoptics. The latter certainly give 


the impression that the ministry began after John was cast / 
into prison, but in the Fourth Gospel an important portion of 


_it takes place before that event. Again, in the Synoptics we 


hear of only one Passover, whereas in John there are three. 


But most serious is the change of scene. The first three 


eS Σ 


VA Eat Wis de XU. τ 
a 


ὃ COMPARISON WITH THE SYNOPTICS 


Gospels concur in not bringing Jesus to Jerusalem till the 
visit which ended with his crucifixion; the fourth tells us 
of repeated visits, and of prolonged controversy between Jesus 


and the Jews of the capital. John also inserts a most, 


important visit to Samaria, which leads to the conversion of 
many of the Samaritans. In this connection we cannot but 
remember the injunction in Matthew x. 5, not to enter any 
city of the Samaritans. 

Secondly, several events are very differently conceived. 
Jesus appears from the first as the Messiah the Son of God 
and King of Israel,? and there is no appearance of development 
either of Messianic consciousness in Jesus himself or of 
Messianic faith in the disciples. Accordingly, the testimony 
of the Baptist is widely different from that in the Synoptiecs. 
He not only designates Jesus as “the Lamb of God who 
takes away the sin of the world,” ? but bears witness that he is 
“the Son of God.”* His words have no vagueness, and his 
conduct no hesitancy. Again, the cleansing of the Temple, 
which we may regard as an act of Messianic authority (though 


i i te - —— St tl 


this is not expressly stated), is related at the beginning of the — 


ministry in connection with the first Passover.® This act, 
though Jesus is asked what sign he shows to justify it, does 
not seem to lead to any hostility ; but many believed on his 


name. The confession of Peter® can hardly be said to be © 


parallel to that in the Synoptics, the circumstances are so 
different ; but it is the only event at all corresponding to that 
which occupies so important a place in the other accounts. 
This being the case, we must observe the changed point of 
view. Jesus does not ask, “Whom say ye that I am?” for 
the question could not arise when he was acknowledged to be 
the Messiah from the first. So he inquires, “ Will ye also go 


Pt Ae. 4,50. 34.20; 
Ad: 34. 5 ii, 13-22. ὁ vi. 67-69. 


EVENTS DIFFERENTLY CONCEIVED mie 


away?” Peter does not reply as though the confession broke 
for the first time from his lips; but he only repeats what the 
disciples have all along “believed and known.” Accordingly 
they are not charged, with a rebuke, to tell that to no man. 

A variation of a different kind is noticeable in the account 
of the last supper. Although the matter is not wholly 
beyond the reach of controversy, I think I may safely say 
that it is admitted by good critics of quite opposite schools | 
that John places the supper before the Passover, on the 13th 
of Nisan,! and the crucifixion on the 14th, the day on which 


the lamb was killed. The Synoptics identify the supper with 


the paschal meal on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, and 
so postpone the crucifixion till the 15th. 

The miracles are clearly selected from a larger number ; 
but, whether through accident or design, the selection is 
limited by the sacred number seven. They appear to me to 
be conceived in a different spirit from those of the Synoptics. 


_ The latter, if they exhibit Messianic power, are more markedly 
displays of compassion. But in John the manifestation of 
_Christ’s glory seems the prominent object. This is the ex- 
_clusive purpose of the miracle at Cana.2, The nobleman whose 
son was dying is rebuked for not believing without signs and 
_ wonders, and his request is apparently granted for the sole 
purpose of creating belief. Accordingly the presence or 
_ absence of faith does not affect the miraculous power of Jesus 
as it does in the Synoptics? The healing of the impotent 
man at Jerusalem is introductory to a discourse which sets 
- forth the relation of the Son to the Father, and causes Jesus 
_ to be charged with making himself equal to Godt The feed- 


1 For convenience I retain our mode of dividing the days. According to 
Jewish reckoning the 14th began at sunset on the day which we should call 


_ the 13th. Thus, from the Jewish point of view, the supper and the cruci- 
_ fixion took place on the same day. 


: 


. 4 
᾽ 
ἘΠῚ 


ΝΣ 


ΔΎΣΙΣ, 3 See especially Mark vi. 5,6; Matt. xiii. 58. ist ὁ 


40 COMPARISON WITH THE SYNOPTICS 


ing of the five thousand is preparatory to a conversation 
on the bread of life! The blind man at Jerusalem received 
his sight because Jesus was the light of the world, and the 
very object of his blindness was that the miracle might be 
wrought.? Finally, the raising of Lazarus, notwithstanding 
the emotion and sympathy displayed by Jesus, seems chiefly 
intended to bring out the truth that he is the resurrection and 
the life? Probably five, certainly four, of these miracles are 
peculiar to John. Some would identify the nobleman with 
the centurion in Matthew viii. 5 sqq., Luke vii. 2 sqq.; but the 
circumstances are so entirely dissimilar that this supposition 
is, to say the least, very precarious. As the writer admits at 
least two of the Synoptic miracles, it deserves notice that he 
passes over the raising of Jairus’ daughter and of the widow 
of Nain’s son, though these appear well suited to his purpose. 
But most curious is the total omission of a class of miracles 
which take a prominent place in the other Gospels, and which 
were so well adapted to prove the authority of the Messiah, 
the casting out of demons from the possessed. 

Thirdly, there are several remarkable omissions. Of course 
each Gospel omits much that is recorded in one or other of the 
remaining three; but the omissions to which I refer deserve 
attention because they relate to facts which are so familiar 
from the Synoptic narratives that we feel impelled to ask 
why they are passed over. The following instances may be 
mentioned. Although so much is said of the relation between 
John the Baptist and Jesus, nothing is recorded about the 
baptism itself, and the message from John expressing a doubt 
about the Messiahship of Jesus has disappeared. There is no 
allusion of any kind to the temptation. In the account of the 
last supper, the words “this is my body,” “this is my blood,” 
--have no equivalent. It is almost startling to finggthat the 


1 vi. 2 ix, 3 xi. # 


—— 


REMARKABLE OMISSIONS II 


institution of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial of Christ is 
omitted not only from John, but perhaps from all our Gospels. 
Luke alone, in the received text, contains a direction to 
remember Jesus, and that only in the breaking of bread. But 
the words in Luke xxii. 19-20, from τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον 
down to ἐκχυννόμενον are placed in double brackets by Westcott 
and Hort, who think that the evidence leaves “no moral 
doubt that the words in question were absent from the 
original text of Luke.”! They were, however, retained by 
Tischendorf, who is followed by Nestle. Our Revisers also 
retain them. If Westcott and Hort are right, we must depend, 
for the complete form of this last request of Jesus, on the sole 
testimony of Paul,? and cannot regard its omission as in any 


garden, with its prayer of apprehension and of submissive 
trust, is not alluded to, though there is a kind of parallel in 
another connection, which is peculiar to this Gospel.* The 
sad ery upon the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou 
forsaken me?” is omitted, as it is in Luke, each evangelist 
reporting in its place final words which are peculiar to 
himself. The rending of the veil of the Temple, and the con- 
fession of the centurion, are contained, with variations, in all 
the Synoptics, but not in John. 

One other omission must be noticed, which is common to 


John and Mark. Not only is there no narrative of the birth © 


and infancy of Jesus, but there is no suggestion, however 
faint, of a miraculous birth. But this not all; Philip describes 
him to Nathanael as “Jesus the son of Joseph, him from 


Nazareth.”* The Jews of Capernaum also say, “Is not this 


Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know ?”° 
Some of the Jews of Jerusalem think that he cannot be the 


1 Notes on select readings at the end of their Greek Testament, p. 64. 
21 Cor. xi. 23 sqq. 3 xii. 27 sqq. 41 46. 5 vi. 42. 


way characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. The agony in the 4 


12 COMPARISON WITH THE SYNOPTICS 


Christ, because the Christ did not come out of Galilee, but was 
of the seed of David, and came from Bethlehem. To these 
suppositions there is no reply containing even the slightest hint 
that they were incorrect ; so that if this Gospel were our only — 
witness, we should certainly assume that Jesus was the son of 
Joseph and Mary, and born at Nazareth, and that he made no 
claim to being a member of the royal line. ) 

Fourthly, a large part of the Gospel is additional to the 
contents of the Synoptics; but we may notice two important 
insertions in parts where the narratives are open to comparison. — 
It is said that after the crucifixion one of the soldiers pierced 
the side of Jesus, and immediately there came out blood and 
water. The writer evidently lays great stress on this, for he 
asserts emphatically that the testimony is true, as being that 
of an eye-witness? In the account of the resurrection, and of 
the appearances of the risen Christ, the doubt of Thomas, the 
appearance to him, in which he is desired to apply the tests 
which he thought necessary, and his exclamation, “my Lord 
and my God,” are peculiar to John. 

Fifthly, the teaching of Jesus is peculiar both in style and | 
in subject. The difference in style is more easily felt than 
described. If one of the longer discourses of the Fourth 
Gospel were transferred to any of the Synoptics, every 
intelligent reader would perceive that it had been misplaced. 
As far as the structure of the language is concerned, it is so 
similar throughout the work that it is sometimes difficult to — 
tell where the words of a speech end and those of the writer 
begin. Although there are many brief sayings which dwell 
in the memory, like beautiful islands of thought, still there is 
more of short sententiousness in the Synoptics, and of : 
connected discussion in John. The total absence of parables 
gives a strangely altered impression of Christ’s method, and — 


1 vil. 41 86. 2 xix. 33 sqq. 


PECULIARITY OF THE TEACHING 13 


perhaps makes us feel, more than anything else, the in- 
completeness and special colouring of the portraiture which is 
here presented to us.' 

The change in the substance of the teaching is no less 
remarkable than that in the style. I do not now refer to 
particular views, such as the eschatology, which differs so 
completely from that of the Synoptics. The central object of 
the teaching is no longer what it was. In the Synoptics Jesus 
deals mainly with great moral and spiritual principles; and 
whatever tone of authority pervades his utterance, he touches 


_ only incidentally upon his own personal claims. In John, 


although there are other elements as well, yet the prevailing 


topic is Jesus himself, and his relations to God, to his disciples, 


and to the unbelieving world. The impression which we 


derive from reading the Gospels is fully borne out by aa 


careful examination of the facts. The word ἐγώ is always | 


more or less emphatic in Greek. It is used by Christ in , 


Matthew fifteen times, of which six are in the Sermon on the 
Mount,—* But I say unto you,” a phrase which undoubtedly 
implies that he considered himself entitled to improve on the 


_ old legislation; but in none of the passages does he lay down 


any doctrine about his person or authority. The latter remark 


is true also of the nine passages in which he employs the 


word ἐγώ in Mark. In Luke we meet with it ten times, and 


: in only two places is there anything that may seem like an 


assertion of his pre-eminence: xxi. 15, “I will give you a 


f 


- mouth and wisdom,” and xxiv. 49, “I send the promise of my 
Father upon you,” the latter being after the resurrection. 


In John Christ says ἐγώ no less than 117 times,’ and at least 


_ thirty-five of these are in distinct assertion of his own claims. 


1 See the “‘ Note on the Speeches ” at the end of the chapter. 
2 My numbers may be uncertain to a very small extent owing to differences. 
of reading. 


᾿ 


14 COMPARISON WITH THE SYNOPTICS 
The following sayings, which are peculiar to the Fourth 


Gospel, will sufficiently illustrate the character of these 


passages. He says: I am the bread of life; the light of the — 
world; the door; the good shepherd; the resurrection and . 


the life; the way, the truth, and the life; the true vine. He 
declares that he is from above, that he has come forth from 
God, that he and the Father are one; and, in accordance with 
this, that he has conquered the world, that he will send the 
Paraclete, that he will raise up in the last day him that 
believes on him. This last expression introduces us to some 
further curious facts. The word πίστις, which we might 
expect to be frequent in this Gospel, is not found there at all. 
In Matthew it occurs eight times, in Mark five, in Luke 
eleven; and it is always used in a general sense, and not of 
faith in Christ. But when we turn to the verb, πιστεύω, the 
facts are curiously altered. We meet with it in Matthew 
eleven times, in Mark fifteen, in Luke nine; and it is not used 
of believing on Christ except in Matthew xviii. 6, with the 
parallel in Mark ix. 42, where it is not part of any doctrinal 
statement,—*“ Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones 
who believe in me.” In John the word appears 100 times. 
Of these, if we pass over passages which speak of believing 
Christ or his words, thirty-three refer expressly to belief on 
him, and eleven more imply it by the context. In thirteen of 
these, belief on him is required or is connected with some 
spiritual blessing. In twenty of the instances the term is 
ascribed to Christ, who insists upon faith in himself as quite 


; 


fundamental in the deliverance from ‘sin and the attainment 
of eternal life. These facts of phraseology are very signifi- — 


cant. Passages in the Synoptics may be appealed to which 
lend some support to Johannine doctrine; but if we regard 
the teaching as a whole, the distinction between the two types 
is broad and deep. 


’ 


ne ee 


ACQUAINTANCE WITH SYNOPTIC TRADITION 15 


Sixthly, the representation of Christ’s person is not the 
same as in the older Gospels. As this subject involves points 
of disputed exegesis, we cannot now go into details. We may, 
however, safely say that in the Synoptics the human character 
is more prominent, in John the divine communion. There is 
also, confessedly, no intimation of Christ’s pre-existence in 
the former, whereas in the latter it is referred to several 
times, and, whether we interpret it literally or ideally, the 
passages which are appealed to are peculiar to this Gospel. 
Such, then, is the nature of the differences which mark off 
the Fourth from the other Gospels. In this connection we 
must notice the question whether the author manifests an 
acquaintance with the Synoptics. That he assumes on the 
part of his readers some general knowledge of the evangelical 
history is beyound doubt. It may be sufficient to refer here 
to two of the most striking passages | by which this is 
established. In iii. 24 we read that “John had not yet been 
east into prison,” though the event has not been previously 

recorded. In xi.1 it is taken for granted that Mary and 

Martha are known. ‘This second instance seems to me to point 
very clearly to a familiarity with Luke or with the sources 
from which Luke derived the account which he alone gives 
of the two sisters ;! for not only is it assumed that they will 

be known to the readers, but it is not. assumed that facts 
ΠΟ will be known which Luke has failed to mention. Accordingly, 
we are expressly told that “There was a certain rich man, 
᾿ Lazarus,” and we also learn that the village,? which Luke 
| leaves without a name, was Bethany.* There are also some 
_ short sentences which are in close or partial agreement with 


1 x, 38 sqq. 2 Κώμη in both Gospels. 
_ 8.50 at least I understand the text, in spite of the difference of the 
’ prepositions ἀπό and ἐκ, though it is possible to adopt the meaning that 
he belonged to Bethany, but was derived from some other village. For 
the change of preposition see i. 45, 46, 47. 


16 COMPARISON WITH THE SYNOPTICS 


the Synopties: for instance, v. 8, “ Arise, take up thy bed and 
walk,” hardly differs from Mark 11. 9; xiii. 38, “The cock 
shall not crow till thou shalt deny me thrice,” comes nearest 
to the words of Luke xxii. 34.1 For a full list of such 
allusions and resemblances I may refer to Westcott.’ The facts 
are, 1 think, sufficient to establish what in itself is extremely 
probable, that the writer of our Gospel was acquainted with 
the Synoptic cycle of narratives, but cannot prove that he 
made use of our Gospels or of any of them, though that also 
is by no means destitute of probability.* 


1 Parallels in Matt. xxvi. 34, Mk. xiv. 30. 

2 The Gospel according to St John, 1886, pp. 1xxxi. sqg. See also Liicke, 
Commentar tiber das Ev. des Joh., 1840, pp. 194 sqq. and 241. a 

3 Schiirer says that the fact of literary dependence may now be 
regarded as almost universally recognised. He instances especially the 
section on John the Baptist (i. 19-34), the cleansing of the Temple 
(ii. 13-16), the nobleman of Capernaum (iv. 47-54), the feeding of the 
five thousand (vi. 1-21), the anointing in Bethany (xii. 1-8), and the 
history of the passion. (Ueber den gegenwiirtigen Stand der johanneischen 
Frage, in Vortrége der theologischen Konferenz zu Giessen. V. Folge, 1889, 
p. 60). Probable instances of dependence on the Synoptics are pointed 
out in the course of M. Jean Réville’s Le Quatritme Evangile, son origine 
et sa valeur lustorique, 1901. Bretschneider, while admitting that the 
author was acquainted with written or unwritten traditions, thinks that 
he was not in possession of our Synoptics, for otherwise he would have 
made some use of the speeches contained in them, and would not have 
contradicted them so often. (Probabilia, pp. 65 sqq.). 


NOTE ON THE SPEECHES. 


In regard to the character of Christ’s speeches it is dangerous to 
trust to mere impression, and I think exaggerated statements have 
sometimes been made about their prolixity and dialectical style. 
Justin Martyr, in introducing a number of examples of Christ’s 
teaching, taken largely from the Sermon on the Mount, says, βραχεῖς 
δὲ καὶ σύντομοι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λόγοι yeysvacw* οὐ yap σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν ; } 
and it has sometimes been confidently asserted that this description 
could not possibly apply to the Fourth Gospel. I have therefore 


1 Apol. i, 14. i 


NOTE ΟΝ THE SPEECHES 17 


taken the trouble of comparing Matthew with John in regard to the 
length of Christ’s sayings. I count as a separate saying each of the 
detached portions of a conversation. It appears, then, that in 
Matthew Christ speaks 139 times, in John 122 times. These 
numbers are sufficiently close to admit of a reasonable comparison 


of the number of times speeches of various lengths are used; and 


the following table gives the results :— 


Matt. ohn, 
No. of times, Length of speech. BP be atte 
39 Much less than one verse, sometimes 42 

two or three words, 

39 One verse, or almost one verse. 27 

6 One and a fraction. 6 

17 2 verses, 15 

4 2 ,, anda fraction. ο 

6 3 verses, 6 

7 4 ; 4 

2 5 33 7 

3 6 ,, or 6and a fraction. 5 

3 7 3) I 

ο 8 ,, and a fraction. I 

I 9 ,, org anda fraction. I 

ο congas I 

I I2 ,, or 12 and a fraction. 2 

3 13»; I 

2 Ts ο 

Ι Ee ibs oO 

I 19 |; ο 

fe) ΖΕ .; I 

ο 29 ;; I 

2 37-38 verses. oO 

ο 52 verses. I 

I 93 ,, anda fraction. O 

I 107" ;, 0 

We may summarise the result thus :— 

Not exceeding 3 verses Matt. 111 ~ John 96 
Exceeding 3 and not exceeding 10 meray 16 » 20 
3) TO 5, 55 2} 20 32 8 ” 3 
33 20 33 4 33 3 


The difference, then, between Matthew and John does not consist of 
the shortness of the speeches in the former and their length in the 
latter. But perhaps the speeches are of a more flowing and rhetorical 
kind, and it is impossible to pick out of them short and pregnant 


11 include in Christ’s speeches verses which may be only the reflections of the 
writer, when there is nothing to mark the transition. 
2 


18 NOTE ON THE SPEECHES 


sayings. In order to test this I have selected sixty sayings which 


easily stand by themselves, and imprint themselves on the memory, — 


One might add largely to the number, especially from Christ’s sayings 
about himself, of which I give only some of the most striking. 
Everyone must remember words, particularly from chapters xiil.-xvil., 
which I have not given. 

“‘ Ye shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending 
and descending upon the son of man,” i. 51. ‘‘ Make not my Father’s 
house a house of merchandise,” ii. 16. “ Pull down this temple, and 
in three days I will raise it,” ii, 19. ‘Unless a man be born from 
above, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” iii. 3. ‘‘That which has 
been born out of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born out 
of the spirit is spirit,” iii. 6. ‘The spirit blows where it lists, and 
thou hearest its sound, but dost not know whence it comes or whither 
it goes: so is everyone who has been born out of the spirit,” 111, 8. 
“ Whosoever will drink of the water that I will give him shall never 
thirst,” iv. 14. ‘*The hour comes when neither in this mountain nor 
in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father,” iv. 21. “The true 
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the 
Father seeks such worshippers of him,” iv. 23. “I have meat to eat 
that ye do not know,” iv. 31. “My meat is to do the will of him 
that sent me, and to finish his work,” iv. 34. “A prophet has no 
honour in his own country,” iv. 44. ‘‘ Unless ye see signs and wonders 
ye will not believe,” iv. 48. ‘‘Thou hast become well; sin no more, 
lest a worse thing befall thee,” v.14. ‘‘ My Father works hitherto, 
and I work,” v. 17.“ The Son can do nothing from himself but what 
he sees the Father doing,” v. 19. “He who honours not the Son 
honours not the Father who sent him,” v. 23. ‘‘ My judgment is just, 
because I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me,” 
vy. 30. “Ye will not come to me that ye may have life,” v. 4o. 
‘“‘ How can ye believe, receiving glory from one another, and ye seek 
not the glory that comes from the only God?” v. 44. ‘‘ Labour not for 
the meat that perishes, but for the meat that endures unto eternal life,” 
vi. 27. ‘The bread of God is he that comes down out of heaven and 
gives life to the world,” vi. 33. “1 am the bread of life: he that 
comes to me shall not hunger, and he that believes on me shall never 
thirst,” vi. 35. ‘‘ No one can come to me tnless the Father who sent 
me draw him,” vi. 44. ‘It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits 
nothing ; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” 
vi. 23. “The world hates me because I testify about it that its works 
are evil,” vii. 7. “‘If any man will do his will, he shall know of the 
doctrine whether it is from God or I speak from myself,” vii. 17. 


ΓΟ τὶ» = *. 


a 


NOTE ON THE SPEECHES 19 


“ Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment,” 
vil. 24. “1 any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink,” vii. 37. 
“1 am the light of the world ; he that followeth me shall not walk in 
darkness, but shall have the light of life,” viii. 12. ‘He that sent 
me is true, and I speak to the world the things which I heard from 
him,” vill. 26. ‘“ Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make 
you free,” vii. 32. ““ Everyone who commits sin is a slave” [of sin], 
vii. 34. “Ifthe Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed,” 
vill. 36. ‘If any man keep my word, he shall never see death,” viii. 
51. “We must work the works of him that sent me while it is day ; 
night is coming when no man can work,” ix. 4. “For judgment I 
came into this world, in order that they who see not may see, and 
they who see may become blind,” ix. 39. “If ye were blind, ye 
would not have sin; but now ye say, we see; your sin remains,” ix. 
41. “Jam the resurrection and the life; he that believeth on me, 
even if he were dead, shall live ; and everyone that lives and believes 
on me shall never die,” xi. 25. ‘‘ Unless the grain of wheat fall into 
the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much 
fruit,” xii. 24. ‘‘ He that loves his life shall lose it; and he that 
hates his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal,” xii. 25. 
“Tf any man serve me, the Father will honour him,” xii. 26. “1,181 
be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself,” xii. 32. 
“‘ As ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may become sons 
of light,” xii. 36. ‘“‘ He that believes on me believes not on me, but 
on him that sent me,” xii. 44. “1 came not to judge the world, but 
to save the world,” ΧΙ]. 47. “1 gave you an example, that ye should 
do as I did to you,” xiii. 15.“ He that receives whomsoever I shall 
send receives me, and he that receives me receives him that sent me,” 
ΧΙ]. 20. “A new commandment I give you, that ye love one 
another, ΧΙ]. 34. “In this shall all men know that ye are my 
disciples, if ye have love among one another,” xiii. 35. ‘“‘ Let not 
your heart be troubled ; ye believe in God, believe also in me,” xiv, 
1. “In my Father’s house are many mansions,” xiv. 2. ‘‘I am the 
way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except 
through me,” xiv. 6. ‘He that has seen me has seen the Father,” 
_ xiv.g. “If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments,” xiv. 15. 
“He that loves me shall be loyed by my Father, and I will love him, 
and will manifest myself to him,” xiv. 21.  ‘‘ Peace I leave with you, 
my peace I give unto you,” xiv. 27. “Glorify thy Son, that the Son 
_ may glorify thee,” xvii. 1. ‘My kingdom is not from this world,” 
Xviii. 36. “To this end have I been born, and to this have I come 
_ into the world, that I may bear witness to the truth,” xviii. 37. 


20 NOTE ON THE SPEECHES 


It is not true, then, that the Johannine Christ speaks like a Sophist, 
and abstains from using brief and concise sayings. But if the above 
list (made not at all for purposes of comparison) be compared with 
Justin’s selection from the Synoptics, a pervading difference will at 
once make itself felt. The latter gives a summary of the ethical 
requirements of Christianity, in regard to temperance, love, giving 
to the needy, being serviceable, and free from anger, swearing, 
worshipping God only, doing what Christ requires, paying tribute. 
The former is mainly spiritwal and doctrinal, and seems clearly more 
fitted for use among believers than for apologetic purposes. 


CHAPTER III 
THE PURPOSE WITH WHICH THE GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN 


In view of the facts set forth in the preceding chapter, we 
may consider next with what purpose the book was written. 
And first we may set aside some suppositions which do not 
appear to be tenable. The usual object of a biography is to 
delineate faithfully the life and character of its hero, and it is 
usual in modern times to collect together every kind of 
detail which a scrupulous diligence can discover. But even 
now biographies of well-known men, who may serve as illustra- 
tions of some noble quality, are written with a didactic end in 
view ; and then there is a selection from the existing material, 
and those incidents are dwelt upon which are at once the | 
most interesting and the best calculated to exhibit the traits of 
character which the writer wishes to commend to the reader’s 
attention. In such a work, while we look for reasonable care, 
we do not expect the same minute accuracy, and still less the 
same complete portraiture, which we require in a life written 
with a purely biographical purpose. The intention of the 
author affects also that of the reader, and we consult books of 
this class, not for information about successive events, but for 
instruction in principles affecting life and character. Now the 
Fourth Gospel may be regarded as an extreme example of this 
_ kind of biography. It is not its object to tell us all that can 
᾿ be learned about the life of Jesus, but to awaken or strengthen 


21 


22 THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL 


our faith in him. It assumes that we are already acquainted 


with his life, and the writer avowedly lays before us only a 
portion of a much larger mass of material which was at his 
disposal. The omission of the parables shows that he did 
not aim at giving an illustrative picture of what was most 
characteristic in Jesus. But may he not have intended to 
supplement or correct the deficiences of the Synoptists, and to 
that extent have been governed by a simply biographical 
interest ? This may, I think, have affected to some extent the 
execution of his plan; but I see no evidence that it was either 


the initial or the governing motive of his work. He himself 


gives no intimation of such a design, and the book has not in 
the least the appearance of asupplement. It is not a collection 


of fragments, but the selected materials are combined into ἃ 


finished structure, and the several parts take their places, not 
to fill up the gaps in another plan, but to subserve the total 
impression of the composition in which they are found. I 
think, therefore, that we must accept fully and frankly all 
that is involved in the author’s own statement that he wrote 
in the interests of faith, and not of biographical fact. Of 
course, incidents recorded in this way may be facts; but, as 
bearing on our judgment of some difficult questions, it is most 
important for us to see clearly that the placing of mere facts on 
record was not the author’s primary object. 

Now if the book was written to promote faith, we cannot 
help asking, whose faith? If we look merely at the pro- 
position that “ Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” we might 
think that the work was intended for unbelievers, for this 
surely is fundamental in Christian belief. But as some 
knowledge of the evangelical history is presupposed, it is 
evident that the expected readers must be Christians. Must 
we, then, think of some heretical sect, and suppose that we 
have before us a controversial pamphlet? Ancient as well as 


NOT AGAINST HERETICS 23 


modern writers have believed that Cerinthus was the object of 
attack, and others have had recourse to the Docetz or the 
Ebionites. Without entering into the details of particular 
systems, and considering how far the Gospel stands in 
opposition to them, I think we may fairly say that.at all events 
that opposition is confined to very few passages, that it is 
nowhere explicit, and that it affords no explanation even 
approximately adequate of the entire composition. The 
solution of the difficulty presented by the last verse of the | 
twentieth chapter may rather be found in the high sense ὴ 
which the author attaches to the word faith. He does not 
wish only to persuade men that Jesus is the Christ ; he wants 
them so to believe as to have lifein his name. Life is one of 
the notes of the Gospel. It is not indeed unknown to the 
Synoptists, for Matthew has the word seven times, Mark four 
times, and Luke four times! But John uses it thirty-six 
times, and it clearly contains with him a fundamental thought. 
Now the faith which he wished to promote was one so deep 
and heartfelt as to result in life, life inward and eternal, as 
it has been depicted in the course of the narrative. A man 
may believe and be free from the seductions of any heretical 
hypothesis; and yet his faith may be constantly worn down 
by the friction of the world and of self, and need renewal 
_ from the words of one who himself lives above the world, and 
_ is conscious of eternal life abiding in his own breast. I think, 
then, that the writer stands above ephemeral controversies, 
and addresses the universal Church, and that his Gospel, far 
from being a polemical pamphlet, is the utterance of one 
of those rare souls who speak with timeless voice to the 
permanent needs of man. 

If these remarks are correct, the statement that the book 
has been written with a theological interest would be mis- 


1 Besides once or twice in a lower sense. 


24 THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL 


leading unless we took into account the character of the 
theology which it represents. Theology suggests intellectual 
forms, worked out into a system, and supported by coherent 
argument. But this is not what we find in the Fourth 
Gospel. The faith which it wishes to create is spiritual 
rather than intellectual. It is not systematic. It does not 
present its propositions in a regular order of mutual depen- 
dence, and invite our acceptance of them by the logical 
cogency of its proofs. It does not even define its leading 
terms, but flings them out in a sublime vagueness, and allows 
them, as in some heavenly trance, to pass with dim majesty 
before the eye of the soul, so as to make their own impression 
according to the spiritual sensibility. Neither is the theology 
an expression of the philosophical schools. Some of the terms 
and ideas remind one, indeed, of the system of Philo, and a. 
careful study of Philo is of great service in enabling us to 
understand the Gospel as well as the later system of theology 
which professes to interpret it. But the picture of Jesus 
himself has nothing in the least answering to it in Philo, and 
the very ideas which have most appearance of being derived 
have been brought under the transfiguring influence of an 
original and creative mind, and turned out stripped of their 
philosophical dress, and robed with a new spiritual beauty to — 
captivate the world. Nothing indeed can well be more unlike _ 
than Philo and John, the bulky and diffuse rhetoric of talent 
and the brief condensed simplicity of genius. The philo- 

1M. Jean Réville regards the writer throughout as a man imbued with 
the Alexandrian philosophy, which is embodied in the works of Philo. 
His view, while containing an element of truth, appears to me greatly 
exaggerated. See also, on the same side, Anathon Aall, Geschichte der Logos- ὁ 
idee in der christlichen Litteratur, 1899 ; and Julius Grill, Untersuchungen 
diber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliwms, Erster Teil, 1902, where the text 


of Philo bearing on the subject is very fully given, Against the hypothesis 
of direct literary dependence we have to set not only the complete difference 


of style, but the total absence of Philo’s special vocabulary, not only in _ 


NATURE OF ITS THEOLOGY 25 


sophical terms are like soft echoes from some lower world, 


and the whole treatment of them leaves on my mind the 


impression of one who did not belong to the schools, but knew 
from the society around him the language and the difficulties 
of the thoughtful men of his time, and sought to answer their 
questionings, not by sinking into the wordy dialectics of a 
sophist, but by taking up the current terms, and transmuting 
them with the fire of a faith which was more akin to spiritual 
imagination than to speculative philosophy. Hence his 
replies, though tinged with the colours of the age in which he 
lived, are in substance quite independent of Ebionite or Gnostic 
controversies, and pierce to the hidden roots of faith and 


unbelief in the enduring nature of man. He does not attempt 


to clear up mere intellectual doubts and perplexities; for these 
vary from age to age, and may be due to the inward striving 
of the spirit towards a nobler life. He saw that there was 
more faith in patiently waiting for the light, which will 
make clear the things that we understand not now, than in 
binding up the soul in dogmatic leading-strings. The un- 
belief which is of the earth, and cuts men off from God, what- 
ever may be their profession, he traces to the unregenerate 
heart, the false deference to a dead authority, the wishing to 
agree or seem to agree with the multitude or with the rulers 
and the learned, the seeking of glory one from another, and 
not the glory that comes from the only God. These are the 
things that blind men, and place them on the wrong side in 
the great crises of history, when individuals and nations are 


_ sifted, and the heralds of God sound an alarm to a world 


_ buried in spiritual sleep. And, on the other hand, the life is 


— 


relation to God, but in regard to the Logos. The idea of the Logos itself 
had long been a commonplace in Philosophy, and the adoption of it no more 
proves a philosophical education than the use of the word evolution would 
do so at the present day. 


26 THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL 


the light of men, and he who seeks not his own will, who 
desires only the glory of Him who sent him, judges justly and 
his heart is at peace amid the strife of tongues. 

There is one other characteristic which explains those that. 
we have just noticed: the author writes out of the fulness of 
his own inward experience. Passage after passage might be 
quoted in illustration of this statement; but a few must 
suffice. Interrupting one of his great utterances, he exclaims, 


“We beheld his glory, glory as of an only-begotten from 8. 


father.” Am I wrong in saying that these words indicate a 
profound sense of having received a veritable revelation, 
opening up vistas of heavenly glory that reached the very 
bosom of God? “ He declared him”:? had not Christ declared 


Him to the heart of this disciple, and made him realize for the — 


first time what it was to live in communion with the Father ? 
The author teaches at length the doctrine of regeneration: 


had he not experienced a vital change? It is possible even — 


that, like Nicodemus, he was an old man when the spirit, 
blowing where it listed, lighted upon him with a new power, 
and showed him as never before the true glory of his master 
and its far-reaching consequences. Hence he knew in him- 
self that he had eternal life, that he had passed out of death 
into life.2 “If the Son shall make you free ye shall be free 
indeed.” * He does not describe this freedom ; but did he not 
feel within him the freedom of a child of God, and trace it to 
the emancipating power of him who was “the Son”? Finally, 
did he not enjoy the exalted communion of Love, with its open 
vision of the Beloved, with its indwelling of the Father and 
the Son, with its Holy Spirit of Truth, which the world in 
all its cleverness and knowledge cannot see? Such was this 
“theologian,” as the ancients called him; not the framer of 
bare dogmas, not the architect of a system, not the disputer 


11, 14. 21 08. OW) BA: * vill. 36. 


WRITTEN FROM INWARD EXPERIENCE 27 


of this world, but one who saw the heavens opened, and the - 
angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, 
who walked with the rapt face of one whose faith had sub- 
dued the world, and who, out of the depths of his loving 
heart, told, not only to his own generation, but to generations . 

far distant in time and country, where he had found the 
secret of eternal life. 


ony eee LTT CONE Ne See 


CHAPTER IV 
HOW FAR IS THE GOSPEL HISTORICAL ? 


IF the purpose of the book has been correctly described, we 


cannot but ask whether its contents may not have been very — 


largely coloured by the idiosyncrasies of the writer’s mind. 


This is the point which must next engage our attention. Τὸ 
is one which might seem to depend on the question of © 


authorship; but in fact it has to be determined to a consider- 


able extent upon other grounds, and, in the present state of — 
inquiry, it has become one of the most important items of — 
evidence through which a conclusion respecting the author- — 
ship is reached. The relation between those two inquiries — 
must be considered farther on; at present we must try to 4 
estimate the historical character of the book by a just criticism — 
of the contents. That thisisa very difficult task to accomplish 4 
without bias I am well aware; and I fully admit that com-— 
petent and impartial men may differ from the conclusion — 
which forces itself on my own mind, though I think opinion © 
is steadily growing, among both opponents and defenders of — 
the Johannine authorship, in the direction in which the — 
facts seem to me to point, so that the contest between opposite — 


camps is one rather of degree than of principle. 
First of all let us guard against an error into which a 


aed 


+ 
[ἢ 


Ἂ 
t 
% 


modern and western investigator is peculiarly apt to fall. 


To ask whether a work is historical or not, is not the same 8 
28 : a 


a 


Ι ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY 29 


| thing as asking whether it is true or not; for truth in regard 
to the past may be of two kinds. This is an age of research 
and scientific accuracy, and the truth which we demand in 
history is truth of fact. There must be no error in a gene- 
alogy ; nothing must be said to have happened on Monday 
if it really happened on Tuesday; no action must be ascribed 
to a man which we are not prepared to support in a court of 
justice. All this is perfectly right, so long as it does not 
blind us to a higher truth. The facts in themselves are 
utterly barren. In history, as in religion, it is the spirit that 
_quickens, and unless we can penetrate the spirit of great 
historical transactions, interpret the principles out of which 
| they sprung, and throw ourselves with sympathetic imagina- 
tion into the passions which animated the great human drama; 
we miss the only truth which is worth receiving. Now it 
is possible, and it was far easier long ago than it is now, to 
think less of the facts than of the inner meaning of the facts, 
and to believe that the highest historical truth is not reached 
till the due impression is made upon the mind of the reader, 
even though that impression cannot be made until the facts 
are cast into the striking forms and tinted with the warm 


colours of historical imagination. I may illustrate these 
; remarks by a quotation from Macaulay, who certainly was 
“not a sentimentalist. In speaking of Machiavelli's History of 
: Florence he says, “The History does not appear to be the fruit 
of much industry or research. It is unquestionably inaccurate. 

But it is elegant, lively, and picturesque, beyond any other 
in the Italian language. The reader, we believe, carries away 
: from it a more vivid and more faithful impression of the 
national character and manners than from more correct 
accounts. The truth is, that the book belongs rather to 
ancient than to modern literature. It is in the style, not of 
Davila and Clarendon, but of Herodotus and Tacitus; and the 


30 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


classical histories may almost be called romances founded ing 
\fact. The relation is, no doubt, in all its principal points, | 
strictly true. But the numerous little incidents which heighten 
the interest, the words, the gestures, the looks, are evidently | 
furnished by the imagination of the author. The fashion of 
later times is different. A more exact narrative is given by 
the writer. It may be doubted whether more exact notions 
“are conveyed to the reader. The best portraits are those in 
which there is a slight mixture of caricature; and we are not 
aware that the best histories are not those in which a little © 
of the exaggeration of fictitious narrative is judiciously 
employed. Something is lost in accuracy, but much is 
gained in effect. The fainter lines are neglected, but the 
great characteristic features are imprinted on the mind 
_forever.”1 Earlier in the same essay he says: “How 
Philip disposed his troops at Cheronea, where Hannibal 
crossed the Alps, whether Mary blew up Darnley, or Siquier 
shot Charles the Twelfth, and ten thousand other questions οὗ 
the same description, are in themselves unimportant. The 
inquiry may amuse us, but the decision leaves us no wiser. 
He alone reads history aright who, observing how powerfully 
circumstances influence the feelings and opinions of men, how 
often vices pass into virtues, and paradoxes into axioms, learns - 
to distinguish what is accidental and transitory in human 
nature from what is essential and immutable.” Now 1 
suppose we may safely assume, as one of the established — 
results of criticism, that the distinction between ancient and 
modern history which is pointed out in the former of these — 
passages is exemplified at least as fully by the narratives οὗ 
the Old Testament as by the histories of Greece and Rome. — 
We must add that the Hebrew writers had a motive which ~ 
was foreign to the classical, or present in a very subordinate 


1 Essay on Machiavelli, near the end. 


JEWISH VIEW OF HISTORY 31 


degree. They saw a divine meaning in the history of their 
people, and they were anxious not only to make their 
narrative vivid, but to show how God had acted and spoken 
through the heroes of the olden time. A history, however 
accurate, which did not present this clearly to the popular 
mind would not have been to them a true history. The facts 
were the drapery in which the word of God clothed itself; 
and as things heard are not so vivid as things seen, it was 
necessary to enlarge the forms and heighten the colours in 
order to produce truth of impression. This tendency is 
especially apparent in the adoption of Haggadah by the 
Rabbinical schools. The object of Haggadah was illustration 
and edification, and the method was about as remote from 
modern historical criticism as it is possible to conceive; but 
_ probably these laborious Rabbis were just as proud of it as the 
modern critic is of his newly-found instrument of research. 
In this form of exposition, to quote the words of Deutsch, 
“The persons of the Bible. . . . became, apart from their pre- 
supposed historical reality, a symbol and an allegory. And 
what the narrative had omitted the Haggadah supplied in 
Many variations. It filled up these gaps, as ἃ prophet 
looking into the past might do; it explained the motives; it 
enlarged the story.”1 If we extend our view beyond Palestine, 
we find the system of allegorical interpretation in its full 
development among the Jews of Alexandria, and see it also, 
though in a subdued form, in the writings of Paul of Tarsus. 
Nothing could be more adapted to destroy what we should 
call the historical sense; for in it the whole value of ancient 
facts lay in their embodiment of philosophical or religious 
‘ideas. Men like Philo had no interest in inquiring whether 
_an incident really occurred in this way or in that, and what 
we regard as the exercise of the first duty of an historian, 
‘Literary Remains, p. 45. 


32 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


they would probably have viewed as learned trifling. If 
we would understand the narratives of this period, we must 
try to place ourselves within its mental atmosphere, and not 
yield to that narrowness of mind which judges the past by the 
current phrases of its own day.’ 

These observations may prepare us to examine without 
discomposure the allegation that the Fourth Gospel is not an 
historical book in our sense of the word. In the age of 
Haggadah and allegory it is conceivable that a man might be 
found who had a dreamy perception of external things, but 
entered with his whole soul into the divine meaning which lay 
behind nature and human life. Such a one might conceivably 
throw some of his ideas into the form of allegory, and re- 
present as spoken by Christ on earth what in reality his 
Spirit had been saying to the world since he was hidden from 
the eyes of men. In writing a history of this kind he might 
expect his contemporaries to understand him, and to extract 
the essence of his spiritual thought without dwelling too 
much on the casket which contained it. There is an interest- 
ing item of evidence that this was the earliest view which 
was taken of the Fourth Gospel. It has been preserved by 
Eusebius? from the lost “ Outlines” ὃ of Clement of Alexandria. 
The fragment professes to give the tradition of the Presbyters- 
from the first,* and says, among other things, “that John, 
however, last, having observed that the bodily things had been 
exhibited in the Gospels, being exhorted by his friends, 

1 An interesting illustration is afforded by “The Holy Life and Death of 
the Lady Letece, Vi-Countess Falkland, etc., by John Duncan Parson.” 
This work contains letters, ostensibly of Lady Falkland’s, together with the 
answers, which are really composed by the author, giving, as he says, “ not 
a strict relation, but a representation.” See the account in Tulloch’s Rational — 
Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the Seventeenth here, 
1872, i. p. 88, note I. 


2 Hist. Ec., vi. 14. * renin 
4 ee a τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων. 


THE EARLIEST VIEW 33 


inspired by the Spirit, produced a spiritual Gospel.”! Now in 
the language of Alexandria, “that which is bodily”? denoted 
the literal sense of Scripture, while “ that which is spiritual ” 3 
signified the higher figurative or allegorical meaning.‘ 
Clement’s statement, therefore, would not mean that the other 
Gospels told more about the bodily life of Christ, and the 
Johannine more about his teaching, but that the former were 
literal histories, whereas John, under the influence of a 
special inspiration, set forth his higher and more secret 
doctrine in the form of allegory. The correctness of this 
interpretation is confirmed by the very plain statements of 
Origen. In connection with the visit to Capernaum in John 
11, 12, he shows at length that the fourth evangelist is not in 
historical agreement with the others, and, as this is only one 
out of several instances, he declares that, if all four Gospels 
are to be received, it can only be through the recognition “ that 
their truth is not in the bodily (or literal) characters,” ° and he 
lays down the somewhat startling rule, that, where the writers 
were unable to speak the truth “at once spiritually and 
corporeally” (or allegorically and literally),° it was their 
purpose “to prefer the spiritual to the corporeal, the true 
spiritual being often preserved in the corporeal falsehood, as 


1 τὸν μέντοι Ἰωάννην ἔσχατον συνιδόντα ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις 
δεδήλωται, προτραπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων, πνεύματι θεοφορηθέντα, πνευματικὸν 
ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον. 

2 τὸ σωματικόν. 3 τὸ πνευματικόν. 

4 See especially Origen, De Principiis, iv. 11 sqq., where it is pertinent to 
observe that he gives an allegorical explanation of the vessels of water at 
Cana. Farther on he says that the Gospels are full of things that are said 
to have happened, but did not happen literally, and that with literal 
narratives innumerable things are mixed up which did not really happen, 2., 
16. Seealso Clem. Al., Strom., vi. 15 sq. p. 807, Potter, who describes as 
τὸ σῶμα τῶν γραφῶν τὰς λέξεις καὶ τὰ dvduara. Philo had already compared 
the literal sense to the body, the symbolical to the soul,—xph ταῦτα μὲν 
σώματι ἐοικέναι νομίζειν, ψυχῇ δὲ ἐκεῖνα (De Migrat. Ab., § 16, i. 450). 

5 εἶναι ἀληθὲς αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐν τοῖς σωματικοῖς χαρακτῆρσιν. Com, in Joan., X. 2. 


6 πνευματικῶς ἅμα καὶ σωματικῶς. 


3 


34 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


one may say.”! There is an echo of this view even in 
Epiphanius: “for most of the things spoken by him were 
spiritual, the fleshly things being already certified.”* If this 
belief prevailed at all widely in the second century, it would 
account for the comparative neglect of the Gospel by an 
apologist like Justin Martyr, who would derive his own 
doctrines from it, but would appeal to it very sparingly as an 
evidence of facts. On the other hand the tendency to accept 
it as veritable history would naturally grow as time passed on, 
and the first impression made by its publication gave way to 
a lifelong familiarity with its contents. Indeed, the common 
mass of Christians would soon receive it in its most literal 
sense; for the very object of allegory was to accommodate itself — 
to the duller apprehension of less advanced minds, and under 
the semblance of facts to infuse as large an amount of 
spiritual truth as each man was able to assimilate. 

” Does, then, the character of the Fourth Gospel afford any 
sanction to this ancient account of its purpose? Undoubtedly 
its avowed theological aim and its general tone are calculated 
to suggest something of the kind, and may induce us to 
scrutinize the matter more closely. We will look first at the 
speeches and then at the events. 

In the speeches no one who was not committed to the old 
idea of infallibility would expect to find verbal exactness. 
On any hypothesis they were not written in the Gospel till at 
least fifty or sixty years after they were spoken; and although 
certain expressions might fix themselves indelibly in the 
memory, the speeches as a whole could not be communicated 
after that lapse of time with the accuracy of a modern news- 


1 προκρίνειν τὸ πνευματικὸν TOD σωματικοῦ, σωζομένου πολλάκις TOD ἀληθοῦς 
πνευματικοῦ ἐν τῷ σωματικῷ, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, ψεύδει. Ib. 4, p. 282, Lom. 

2 πνευματικὰ γὰρ ἦν τὰ πλεῖστα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ λεγόμενα, τῶν σαρκικῶν ἤδη 
ἐπασφαλισθέντων. Haer., li. 19. mvevpatix@s=allegorically (7b. 32). 


THE SPEECHES 35 


paper report. The memory might indeed have retained them 
with a great degree of correctness if through all that time 
they had been made the subject of catechetical instruction ; 
but if that had been the case, they would surely have blended 
with the synoptic tradition, and not have stood apart in their 
present strange singularity. From this consideration it seems 
probable that no more can be justly claimed for them than 
that they are genuine reminiscences, called up after the lapse 
of many eventful and exciting years, and consequently liable 
not only to be conveyed in the author’s peculiar manner, but 
_to have their substance affected by the intermingling of his 
own feelings and experiences. We find, accordingly, that the. 
style of the speeches is the same as that of the Evangelist. 
In the address to Nicodemus it is by no means evident where 
- the language of Christ is supposed to end and that of the 
Evangelist to begin; and so slight is the historical interest 
that we are told nothing of the end or the result of the inter- 
view. John the Baptist also speaks the language and the 
thoughts of the writer, so much so that many suppose that 
the address at Aenon loses itself and disappears in the author’s 
reflections. At xii. 36 there is a pause in the narrative, and 
Jesus withdraws into concealment. Then come reflections of 
the author upon unbelief and upon cowardly belief. These 
are succeeded by a speech from Jesus, to which no place is 
assigned ; and it seems to be the author’s way of summing 
up the teaching contained in the former part of his work. 
When we add that the style of Christ’s teaching is different 
from that in the Synoptics, we have a body of evidence which 
has convinced some of the ablest defenders of the Johannine 
authorship that the speeches have been very deeply coloured 
in their passage through the writer’s mind. 
But can we go further, and find any traces of a later date 

than the time of Christ? The universalism of Christianity | 


36 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


is explicit in the teaching of Jesus. He speaks with the 
consciousness of a world-wide mission. He refers to the law 
as “ your law,” “their law,”! as though he and his followers 
were quite independent of and above it. Faith in himself was 
the one all-sufficient ground of life, and it was only a mistaken 
opinion of the Jews that life was to be found in the Seriptures.” 
The true worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.? 
He had other sheep which were not of the Jewish fold, and 
these he was to bring so that there should be one flock.* Now, 
if this teaching had been really so clear, the great Pauline 
controversy about the obligation of the law could hardly have 
arisen. Paul, being unable to appeal to any express teaching 
of Christ’s, relies on the significance of his person and his 
work; and this, which is avowedly interpretation in Paul) 
becomes in John a constituent portion of Christ’s doctrine. 
This seems to show that the writer was guided in his thoughts 
by the circumstances of his own time, and was carrying back — 
into the words of Jesus what had indeed resulted from the 
whole spirit of his life and teaching. This consideration is 
hardly qualified by the fact that in some passages Jesus 
speaks in closer agreement with the Synoptics. He calls the 
Temple his Father's house.? He declares that salvation is 
from the Jews.® He says that the Scripture cannot be 
broken.’ But this does not alter the fact that he sets up 
faith in himself as a new and all-sufficient principle of life, in 
opposition to Judaism ; and the historical correctness of some 
passages does not disprove the presence in others of the inter- 
preting thought of a later time. The same reflection of later 
_ideas is suggested by the controversy with the Jews. In 
the other Gospels the main points of attack are the formalism 
and hypocrisy of the Pharisees. But in John the controversial 


1 viii. 17, X. 34, XV. 25. See also vii. 19. Ἀν, 50, 
αν, 2324. =x, 2G. Boal NEG: ¢ av. am ‘ep SG; 


THE SPEECHES 37 


opponents as a rule appear simply as “the Jews,” and the 
object of attack is their unbelief. This points rather to the 
Church’s controversy with the rabbinical schools than to the 
experiences of Jesus himself! Again, the confident claim to< 
be the Messiah from the very first, making indeed the 
proclamation of his Messiahship the central purpose of his 
mission, is so unlike the teaching described especially by Mark, 
that it is difficult to believe that they are both historical. I 
do not wish to exaggerate this difference. Even in the earlier 
portion of the Synoptics a profound sense of greatness and 
authority may be traced in the teaching of Jesus; but what 
at most is implied in this part of the Synoptics has become 
explicit and doctrinal at the very opening of Christ’s ministry 
in John. Surely the former representation is the more likely 
to be historical, and our author carries back into the earthly 
life of Jesus what, through the Spirit and through the Church, 
he had been declaring to the Jews ever since they had rejected 
and crucified him. This argument is not weakened by an 
appeal to x. 24, where the Jews say, “If thou art the Christ, 
tell us plainly,” as though he had not yet done so; for Jesus 
replies, “I told you, and ye did not believe,” showing that 
their unbelief was not from any want of explicit declaration 
on his part. Once more, the complete spiritualizing of the 
eschatology, though we would so gladly trace it back to Jesus 
himself, is so wide a deviation from the other Gospels, and is 


1 See these considerations treated at length in Weizsacker, Das apost. 
Zeitalter, 2nd edition, 1890, p. 539 sqqg. Quite in accordance with the 
Synoptical account, however, the Pharisees appear seventeen times as the 
active enemies of Jesus. The Jews are mentioned sixty-six times, and in 
more than forty they are the people who dispute the claims which Jesus 
puts forward. This curious fact has no parallel in the Synoptics. In all 
three “the Jews” are mentioned only sixteen times, chiefly in the phrase 
“the king of the Jews.” They are referred to very. rarely by the historians 
themselves :—once in Mt. xxviii. 15 ; once in Mk. vii. 3 ; twice in LK. vii. 
3, XXiii. 51. The party antagonistic to Jesus is nowhere so described. 


38 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


so easily explained by the transforming influence of time, that 
we seem to hear rather what Christ had spoken through 
‘history and inward experience to the hearts of his disciples 
than the words which he had addressed to them on earth. 
There is one other aspect of the speeches on which we must 
touch. Their egotism has led to a charge of arrogance against 
Jesus on the assumption of their genuineness, and to an 
assertion of their falsity on the assumption that Jesus had 
really a noble and devout mind. I confess Iam not at present 
able to feel the validity of the ethical rule which renders 
these judgments necessary. It seems to me to rest on the 
tacit supposition that Jesus filled no providential place in’ the 
spiritual history of the world, and that we must reduce him 
to the level, not only of humanity, but of ordinary humanity. 
When his high claims offend us we are saying in our hearts, 
“Ts not this the son of Joseph? What business has he to 
talk in this fashion?” But disregarding particular views of 
Christ’s person, can we not conceive a man set apart to be the 
organ and leader of a world-wide spiritual movement, and © 
becoming conscious in himself that it was so? Can we not. 
conceive him under the burden of his great message, rapt into 
a communion in which he felt that he was interpenetrated 
with the life and word of God, and that it was laid upon him 
to communicate these to mankind, to draw to him disciples 
- who would trust him to the uttermost, and to marshal the 
consecrated host who were to save the world by suffering and 
by love? And ought such a one to teach nothing but abstract 
truth? Ought he never to cry, as he looked with profound 
compassion upon the wants and woes of his brethren, “If any 
man thirst, let him come unto me and drink; if any man is 
sleeping in the death of sin, let him hearken unto my voice and 
live; if any man is groping after God in ancient parchments, 
and title-deeds of law, let him look to me, for the Father is © 


THE SPEECHES 39. 


here, living in me, and 1 ἴῃ him?” Surely to be silent would 
be to hide his light under a bushel and to be false to the trust 
that was laid upon him; and it seems to me a strangely 
external way of judging of conceit to be offended at such 
utterances, without considering the greatness and providential 
position of him who uttered them, as though self-complacency 
might not lurk under a careful abstinence from egotism, and _ 
the deepest humility accompany the loftiest claims. But 
having said this, I am prepared to admit, on historical grounds, 
that the personal claims of Jesus were probably less plain, 
direct, and frequent than the Fourth Gospel would lead ys to 
suppose. Other indications have shown us that the speeches” 
have, to say the least, been coloured in their passage through 
the writer’s mind; and here, too, the Synoptics are probably 
nearer to the historical facts. The writer had felt the 
quickening influence of Christ with such a rare power, that in 
part he is setting forth all that Jesus had been to himself ; 
and ascribing to him words which he had heard in the spirit 
rather than with his fleshly ears. | 
I must refer here to an argument in favour of the strict 
authenticity of the speeches, to which Bleek’ attaches the 
greatest importance. He thinks the prophetical utterances 
of Christ, especially those relating to his own approach- 
ing fate, are clearly more historical than ‘those in the 
Synoptics. The latter declare the coming events quite ex- 
plicitly and fully,” and yet we are told that the disciples did 
not understand what was said, and the catastrophe came upon 
them as a surprise. It is therefore likely that Jesus really 
- gave more figurative intimations of his death and resurrection, 


1 Hinlett. in das N.T., 4th ed., 1886, pp. 327 sqg. This argument had 
already been used by Bertholdt, Hinleit., pp. 1305 8ηᾳ. (quoted by 
Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 14). 

2 See Matt. xvi, 21, xvii. 22 sq., xx. 18 sqy.; Mk. Vili. 31, ix. 31, X. 33 84.; 
LK. ix, 22, 44, xvill. 31 8ηη. 


40 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


and these we find in the Fourth Gospel.1 The same facts 
make curiously different impressions. To me it seems that 
the Synoptical account has a much more historical air than 
‘the Johannine. The words have very likely been made a 
little more explicit, from the writers’ knowledge of their ful- 
filment: but that Jesus should be impressed by the judicial 
murder of the Baptist, and by the growing opposition to him- 
self, and should declare his conviction that the Jewish authori- 
ties would compass his death, and even do so by giving him 
up to the Romans, and should further assert his faith that 
neither he nor his cause could be destroyed,—all this falls 
within the bounds of historical probability. The Messianic 
hopes and the mistaken affection which led Peter to rebuke 
him would account for the inability of the Apostles fully to 
apprehend his meaning. But the predictions in John are 
anticipations, not of seeming disaster coming from the violence 
of men, but of the fulfilment of a voluntarily accepted mission. 
“The Father loves me because I lay down my life that I may 
take it again: no one takes it from me, but I lay it down of 
myself,’—surely these are not words that merely contain a 
dark intimation of having to sacrifice life in the struggle 
against sin; and for my part I cannot see the historical prob- 
ability of their having been uttered by Jesus himself. They 
are rather his reply, through his disciple, to the objection of 
the Jews that they had baffled him by the crucifixion, and 
proved that he was not from God. So little was this the case, 
that he met his death in voluntary submission to a divine 
command, and thus death, instead of showing that he was 
deserted of God, secured him in the Father’s love. This was 
a great truth, and the writer saw that it lay deep in the heart 
of Christ, and sustained him on the Cross; and yet the words 


1 vii. 33 86.) Vili. 21, X. II, 17 5q., xii. 23 86.) xiv. I-4, 18 sqq., 28, Xvi. 
16. 


THE SPEECHES 41 


may not fit naturally into the historical situation in which he 
has placed them. 

On the whole, then, I am unable to ane the speeches as — 
strictly historical. It has indeed been contended with much 
force that there must have been a speculative side to the 
teaching of Christ, else Christianity could never have had 
such an influence on the world of thought. This is well 
worthy of consideration; and I am far from denying that 
there may be in the Gospel a large admixture of genuine 
reminiscence, especially of the substance of the teaching; but 
I do not think our critical appliances will enable us to detach 
it, except perhaps in the case of some short and striking 
sayings, where the writer expressly adds his own interpre- 
tation.! The writer himself probably could not have told us 
in the case of the longer speeches that this was said in the 
flesh and that in the spirit, nor did he care to make such an 
analysis. Christ was always speaking these things to his 
listening soul, and what did it matter if he had not heard 
these precise words in Palestine, when they came to him 
straight out of the heart of the Beloved? We, too, may 
well withhold our hands from the seamless robe. The 
book is religious, giving us, not a photograph, but an 
interpretation of a great life; and it is more important 
for us to understand the inner meaning of Christ’s 
message to the world, and to hear with the spirit his 
words of life and consolation, than to know the precise 
phrase which once for a moment ruffled the. air of 
Palestine. 

Turning to the events, we will notice first some striking 
differences between the Synoptics and John, in regard to 

1 See. ii. 21, vii. 39, xii. 33. This fact was used by Henke, in 1798, 


as an evidence that John recorded the very words of Jesus. Bretschneider 
replies (Probabilia, pp. 22 sqq.). 


42 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


which some able critics have discerned in the latter a closer 
adherence to history. 


- Bleek argues with great force that historical probability 
is altogether on the side of the Fourth Gospel in its account 


of the journeys to the feasts at Jerusalem! Men were 
required by the law to present themselves at Jerusalem three 
times a year; and even if Christ’s ministry did not last a 
full year, it is not likely that he never made his appearance 
in the capital. Still more important, according to Bleek, are 
the indications which the Synoptics themselves contain that 
Jesus had been several times in Jerusalem before the last 
Passover, and endeavoured to convert the inhabitants of the — 
city. He relies especially on the appeal in Luke xiii. 34 sq., Mt. 
Xxiil. 37 sq., “Ὁ Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... . how often would 
I have gathered thy children together, .... and ye would — 
not.” He thinks also that Joseph of Arimathzea must have 
become attached toJesus duringa visit of the latter to Jerusalem, 
and that the acquaintance with Mary and Martha points in 
the same direction. Finally, he contends that, if the accepted 
tradition did not admit of these repeated journeys to the 
capital, the author could have had no motive for altering 
the history in a way which would at once create objections 
to his work; for, even if he thought it necessary to transfer 
the chief controversy to Jerusalem, he might have escaped 
such a glaring violation of fact by prolonging the visit which 
was known to be historical. These arguments are certainly 
not without weight; but there are considerations on the 
other side which greatly weaken their force. The negative — 
evidence of the Synoptics is not easily set aside. It is really 


1 Einl., p. 298 sqqg. Professor H. H. Wendt takes the same view, but 
discusses the question inadequately: Das Johannesevangelium. Line 
Untersuchung seiner Entstehung αν. seines geschichtlichen Wertes, 1900, pp- 
8 sqq. 


THE VISITS TO JERUSALEM 43 


a threefold evidence, for both Matthew and Luke have much 
Jmaterial peculiar to themselves, so that one or other of them 
might very well have introduced some notice of the visits to 
WJerusalem. This unanimity of silence is the more remarkable 
}when we remember that the parent church was established 
: in Jerusalem, where the Apostles would most naturally press 
J upon the attention of their converts some of the teaching 
which had been given in their own city, especially as it was 
of such a doctrinal and fundamental character. Whatever 
}origin we may assign to the Synoptics, they probably rest in 
the last resort on the oral teaching of the first circle of disciples, 
and thus their silence about the visits to the feasts is very 
difficult to explain except by the supposition that these visits 
never took place. But it is important to observe, further, that’ 
the evidence is not wholly negative, for there are certain sayings 
which seem to imply that the writers, at all events, believed 
that the last public visit was also the first. After the con- 
fession of Peter, Matthew relates that “from that time Jesus 
began to show his disciples that it was necessary for him to 
go away to Jerusalem, and suffer many things.”? These 
‘words, which are not in the parallel accounts, surely indicate 
the belief of the evangelist that a visit to Jerusalem was a 
‘new incident in the ministry of Christ. Farther on we are 
told that on the way to Jerusalem Jesus took the Twelve, and 
‘said to them, “ Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the 
Son of Man shall be delivered to the Chief Priests and 
Scribes,” ete.? Luke varies the subsequent words, but retains, 
“Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem.”* Mark adds “that 
the disciples followed him with amazement and fear,” ὃ showing 
their vague anticipation of some crisis far other than they 
desired. It might be said that this state of mind would be 


1 Ac? αὐτὸν ἀπελθεῖν. 2 xvi. 21. 3 Mt. xx. 17-18. 
4 xviii, a7, 6 x. 32-33. | 
h 
| 


44 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


more intelligible if they had already experienced the hostility. 
of Jerusalem; but if this were intended, we should probably 


read, “Behold we are going up again to Jerusalem.” The 
passages as they stand leave a decided impression that this 
was a new enterprise, beset with new dangers. There is 
another passage of a similar kind in Luke,1—* When the days 
were being fulfilled that he should be received up, he set his 
face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem.” This statement implies 
that a journey to Jerusalem demanded unusual resolution, and 
we may find here the reason why Jesus refrained from going 


up to the feasts. He may have felt all along that, if he went, 


he must take his life in his hands, and that the time was not 


come for the death-struggle. He who gave such offence by 


breaking the law of the Sabbath would have no scruple in 


keeping away from one or two feasts, and this is all that we 


have to account for within the period allowed by the 


Synoptists. He might naturally seek to establish his position 
in Galilee before venturing to assail the capital, and it is 


doubtful whether the hierarchy would have submitted so 


long to the vehement attacks which, according to the Fourth 
Gospel, he made upon their authority. All these indications 


are confirmed by the evident belief of Matthew that Jesus was 
not known in Jerusalem except by repute; for he tells us that, 


“when he entered Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, 
Who is this? and the multitudes [that is, those who were 
coming up to the feast, and escorting him] said, This is the 


prophet Jesus, he from Nazareth of Galilee.” It appears, 


then, that although the Synoptical ‘accounts do not actually 
contradict the Fourth Gospel, they belong to a cirele of 
tradition in which it was believed that Jesus paid only one 
public visit to Jerusalem, and it is not easy to explain the 
existence of this tradition except on the supposition of its truth, 


aE G3: 2 xxi, 10-11. 


re 


THE VISITS TO JERUSALEM 45 


_ But how are we to explain the statements which seem to 
run counter to this evidence? Christ’s acquaintance with 


people in or near Jerusalem presents no difficulty whatever ; 
for, to say nothing of the fact that people from Jerusalem 
visited Galilee for the express purpose of hearing Jesus, he 
himself must have been, and probably was, often in Jerusalem 
before his public ministry. The only semblance of evidence 
is contained in the exclamation, “How often would I have 
_ gathered thy children together.”? Of this some rather forced 
explanations have been suggested. Some understand by the 
children of Jerusalem the Jews generally; but I think Bleek 
᾿ justly considers this inconsistent with the context. Others 
4 think that the repeated attempts may have been made during 


ie 


the final visit to Jerusalem, or during the visit in Judexa 


mentioned in Matthew xix. 1 and Mark x. 1; but the exclama- 
4 tion surely implies a yearning and an opposition extending | 
; over a longer time. Another suggestion is that the words are 
oa quotation from a lost book called “The Wisdom of God,” 
ξ which is mentioned in Luke xi. 49 as the source of the words 
᾿ which in Matthew precede the appeal to Jerusalem? But if 
Ba book is really referred to, which seems very doubtful, the 
4 quotation apparently ends before the appeal, for the latter is 
? placed by Luke in a different connection. But may we not 
q find the real solution in a proper interpretation of the words ? 
Jesus does not say, How often have I come up hither, and 
Ἷ appealed to you in vain, but, How often did I wish to gather 
thy children together, and ye did not wish it. Need this 
7 imply more than that he often wished to come to Jerusalem 
and save its people from the impending ruin, but he knew 
that there was no willingness to receive or follow him? And 
= Mi. iv. 25, Xv. 1. 2 Mt. xxiii. 37; LK. xiii. 34. 


3 This view is adopted by Dr Martineau, The Seat of Authority in 
_ Religion, 1890, pp. 342-3. 


ΠῚ 


> 


i 
& 
5 


46 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


now he was coming, aware of the opposition that awaited hi:n,} 

but resolved to make his protest, and incur no blame for tae 
approaching desolation. I am afraid, then, that the symptoms 
of a hidden agreement between the Synopties and John vanish 
on a closer scrutiny. 

We have still to observe that early ecclesiastical traditions | 
though not unanimous, still to a great extent favours the 
synoptical view. The Valentinians confined the ministry of 
Christ to one year, although they made use of the Fourth 
Gospel. Irenseus entirely dissents, appealing to John and to 
the Johannine tradition! The Clementine Homilies* assumed 
that Christ associated with his disciples for a whole year, 
which the writer is contrasting with a brief appearance in a 
vision, so that a longer time would have suited him still better, 
Tertullian 8 says that Christ suffered in the fifteenth year of 
Tiberius, when he was about thirty years old, thus completely 
departing from the view of Irenzeus. Clement of Alexandria, 
assuming that he preached only a year, shows how this was 
agreeable to the prophecy, “ He sent me to preach the accept- 
able year of the Lord.” Origen® says that he taught a year 
and a few months.° The tradition that he was crucified in 
the fifteenth year of Tiberius, in the consulship of the Gemini, 
is found as late as Lactantius? and Augustine’ Now this 


ΕἸ 


1], iii. 3, IL. xx. 1, xxii. 1-6. 2 xvii. 19 ; also the Recogn. iv. 35. — 
3 Adv. Jud. vill. 4 Strom., 1. p. 407, Potter. ᾿ 
5 De Princip., iv. 5. > 


6 In Contra Celsum, ii. 12, he seems influenced by the J ohanniie 
chronology,—é δὲ Ἰούδας παρὰ τῷ Ἰησοῦ οὐδὲ τρία διέτριψεν ἔτη. He says, 
“fere annos tres,” in the Series veteris interpretationts commentarvorum in 
Mat.,§ 40. But in In Levit. Hom., ix. 5, p. 351, he says, “per totum annv’n/ 
erat cum populo,” explaining it to be the year which he himself called 
“the acceptable year of the Lord.” I owe these references to Dr Abbot, 
as below. | 

Τ᾿ Inst. Div., iv. 10; De Mort. Pers., 2. ; 

8. De Civ. Dei, xviii. 54. Elsewhere Augustine appears to accept a ministry 
of some years’ duration,—“ postea [1.6., after the baptism] quot annos in hae 


x} 
y 


ὴ 
ἢ 


THE LAST SUPPER 47 


view is in such obvious contradiction to the Fourth Gospel 
that we are obliged to assume the existence of a tradition 


which was too well grounded to be easily displaced, and it is 

one more evidence that men who fully accepted the Johannine 

authorship of that Gospel still believed that its statements _ ; 

were not always to be understood literally. On the whole, 

: then, I am obliged to conclude that_in regard-to this-marked | 

: divergence from the older accounts, the historical balance 
inclines against the Gospel of John. If the writer himself 
intended his work to be interpreted in the spirit and not in 
the letter, he would have no hesitation in departing from the 
tradition, and, indeed, may have thought that the more he ran 
counter to it, the less likely was he to be misunderstood. 
From this point of view there would be an obvious propriety 
in removing the chief controversies to Jerusalem. 

The next point, in which many critics believe that thes 
Fourth Gospel has a decided advantage over the Synoptics, 
relates to the date of the Last Supper and of Christ’s death. 
Tt has been the prevalent opinion that, whereas the Synoptists 
represent Jesus as partaking of the regular Passover, and 
therefore place the crucifixion on the 15th of Nisan, John 
transfers the death to the 14th, and consequently does not 
describe a Passover meal. The decisive passage for the 
Johannine view is xviii. 28, “They themselves did not enter 
‘nto the Preetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might 
vat the Passover.”” Eating the Passover is a phrase which 
cannot be legitimately extended to the feast of unleavened 


vita egerit,” may be known from the record of his actions: De Doct. Christ., 
xviii. A great number of references to other writers who limited the 
ministry to one year are given by Dr Ezra Abbot, The Authorship of the 
Fourth Gospel: External Evidence. Boston, 1880, p. 73, note. 

1 Keim lays great stress on the ecclesiastical tradition, and gives the 
references, Gesch. Jesu, 111. 495 sqq. 

2 Φάγωσι τὸ πάσχα. 


48 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


bread, and therefore marks a time before the Paschal lamb 
was slain—that is, not later than the 14th Nisan. This 
statement must determine the meaning of the expression, “the 
preparation of the Passover.”* The words, considered apart 
from the context, might mean “ Friday (the day of preparation 
for the Sabbath) in the Passover week”; but the general 
tenor of the narrative shows that they referred to the 
day of preparation for the Passover. Moreover, it would 
have been quite sufficient to say that the day was 
Friday without any reference to the Passover, and, 
indeed, there seems no reason for specifying the day at ' 
all in this particular passage, except to indicate the co- 
incidence of the crucifixion with the slaughter of the 
Paschal lamb. 

Bretschneider thinks that the statement of the Fourth 
Gospel is a pure blunder, due to the writer’s ignorance of the 
Jewish mode of reckoning days. With the Jews, day began 
at sunset; and accordingly the Paschal lamb was eaten in the 
evening of the 15th day of the month, which with us is the” 
evening of the 14th. The writer reckoned the day as’ 
beginning at midnight or sunrise; and, accordingly, if the 
crucifixion took place on the 15th, and the Passover was eaten 
on the 15th, the latter event must, in his opinion, have come 
after, and not before, the crucifixion. This, he admits, is 
conjecture, but it is a conjecture which simply and entirely 
removes all difficulties.’ 

Westcott endeavours to harmonize the Synoptics with John 
by suggesting that they used the word “preparation” in the 
same sense; that it was on the evening of the 13th of Nisan, 
which, with the Jews, was the beginning of the 14th, that 
the disciples asked Jesus where they should make ready the 
Passover; and that they then went immediately, and 

1 John xix. 14. 2 Probabtlia, pp. 106 sqq. 


: 


| 


THE LAST SUPPER 49 


_ prepared a meal which was partaken of that same evening, 
᾿ and which “became the Paschal meal of that. year, when the 
events of the following morning rendered the regular Passover 
impossible.” In regard to several expressions, however, it is 
conceded that “if these words stood alone, there can be no 
doubt that we should explain them of the Paschal meal taken 
at the legal time.” ! 

Among other attempts to bring the Synoptical Gospels, or at 
least their source, into agreement with John, the most striking 
is that of Chwolson.? He takes as the fundamental passage 
Mt. xxvi. 17, “On the first day of unleavened bread, the 
disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we pre- 
pare for thee to eat the Passover?” He points out that this 
statement contains an impossibility, for the first day of un- 
leavened bread was the 15th of Nisan, whereas the preparation 
for the Passover was on the 14th. This difficulty is removed by 
the plausible supposition that the error arose from overlooking 
the repetition of four letters in the original Aramaic Gospel,— 
a sort of oversight, with which those who are acquainted with 
manuscripts are quite familiar. The effect may be presented to 
the English reader thus: “The first day of unleavened bread 
- drew near, drew near the disciples to Jesus.”? In reading there 
should be a pause after the first “drew near”; but where no 
_ punctuation was used, this might be overlooked. If, then, we 
omit the first “drew near,” we have the exact statement of the 
Greek Matthew, “The first day of unleavened bread drew 

1 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 339 sqq. 

2 Das letzte Passwmahl Christi u. der Tag seines Todes, nach den win 
Uebereinstimmung gebrachten Berichten der Synoptiker u. des Evangeliwm 
Johannis. Published in the Mémoires de l Académie impériale des sciences de 


St Pétersbourg, viie Série, Tome xli., no. 1, 1892. There is an excellent 
account of this, with some criticism, in the Jewish Quarterly Review, 1893, 
Pp. 680 sqq. 

5. The Aramaic suggested runs thus :—m ΠΥΡΌΣ 1237p) 2ῚΡ Ν᾿ ΘΘῚ ΝΡ NOY 
278) pr 


4 


50 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


near the disciples to Jesus.”' This conjecture removes one 
great difficulty ; but in order to reconcile the Synoptics with 
John, it is necessary to suppose that this primary error has 
affected Mark and Luke, which were altered by a Gentile 
Christian, who was unacquainted with Jewish usages.? The 
original view of the writers appears in the determination of 
the authorities not to kill Jesus during the festival? It is 
not, however, necessary to follow this subject here into 
greater detail. Sufficient has been said to show that the 
representation in the first three Gospels is not altogether 
above the reach of criticism. The impossibility involved in 
the statement of Matthew xxvi. 17 is removed by Belser in 
another way. He thinks that the Greek, under the influence Ὁ 
of a Semitic original, was intended to mean “on the day 
before the feast of unleavened bread,” that is, on the 13th of 
Nisan, and quotes Euthymius in support of this interpretation.+ 
Chrysostom, again, understands Luke’s ἦλθε de ἡ ἡμέρα as 
meaning that the day was at hand, and this view is supported 
by the Sahidic translation. These interpretations seem forced, 
and could be resorted to only as desperate expedients for the 
removal of a difficulty. They are followed by the further 
improbability that Jesus deliberately partook of the Paschal 
meal on the wrong day, and that, accordingly, the lamb must 
_ have been slain privately, and not in the Temple. Chwolson’s; 
suggestions, the soundness of which must be determined by 
rabbinical scholars, completely remove the latter difficulty. 
Having cited the authorities, he concludes that at the time of | 


1 Chwolson thinks that the sentence, having become faulty, was emended 
by prefixing 3 to xe» ; but perhaps this was not required any more than in 
English : see the Jewish Quarterly, l.c., p. 682. 

aSP Eas 3 Mt. xxvi. 5, MK. xiv. 2. 

4 See his article, “ Der Tag des letzten Abendmahls u. des Todes Jesu” in the 
Theologische Quartalschrift, 1896, viertes Quartalheft, pp. 566 sqq. 

5 Ibid., p. 570 sq. 6 Tbid., p. 572 sqq. 


THE LAST SUPPER SI 


the crucifixion the lamb was offered between sunset and dark 
The Sabbath, he thinks, extending from Friday evening to 
Saturday evening, included the hours for the offering of the 
lambs. According to the Halacha of that time, the Passover 
gave way to the Sabbath, and not, as at a later period, the 
Sabbath to the Passover; that is to say, as the lambs could 
not be offered at the legal time, on Friday evening, they were 
offered on Thursday evening. Then the question arose, When 
should the lamb be eaten? Nothing, according to the law, 
was to be left till the morning. But this might be differently 
interpreted. Some might understand the morning to be 
always that of the 15th; so that the lamb, though it had to 
be prepared in anticipation, might, nevertheless, be eaten at 
the right time. This rule, Chwolson thinks, was followed by 
the authorities, so that their festival had not begun at the 
time of the crucifixion, and nevertheless, the priests were at 
liberty, since the lamb had been already offered. Others 
supposed that the lamb must be eaten on the night which 
immediately followed the offering, and so Jesus, who adopted 
this view, ate the Passover on the Thursday evening. These 

1 Pp. 32 sqq. Iken adopted the view that there was a double celebration 
that year, owing to a difference in reckoning the day of the month. This 
is pronounced by Schtirer, without discussion, to be an “unmégliche 
Ansicht” (Ueber φαγεῖν τὸπάσχα. Giessen, 1883, p. 9). He does not, how- 
ever, touch on the reason for a double celebration, which is suggested by 
Chwolson. Josiah Pratt also advocated the hypothesis of a double cele- 
bration, based on the uncertainty of the first day of the lunar month. See 
his articles in the Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, Jan. and 
Oct. 1863, and Jan. 1866. The Rev. J. C. Lambert (in an article on “The 
Passover and the Lord’s Supper,” in the Journal of Theological Studies, Jan. 
1903) refers to another form of this view. The Rev. Matthew Power, S.J., 
he says, has a theory that there was a hidden rule of the Jewish Calendar- 
ists which is known as “ Badhu,” according to which the Passover never falls 
on a Friday (z.¢., it was not eaten on Thursday evening, when the Jewish 
Friday began) ; and when it was foreseen that the Passover would fall on a 


Friday, one day was added to the eighth month of the preceding year. 
This happened in the year of Christ’s death, but Christ chose to keep the 


52 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


suggestions certainly render the course of events quite intelli- 
gible, and add greatly to the weight of the arguments in 
favour of the Johannine chronology.! 

The best attempts which I know to bring John into 
harmony with the Synoptists are made by Norton? and J. B. 
M‘Clellan.* The same view is supported by Edersheim, who 
states that, though entering the Pretorium would have made 
a man unclean till the evening, it would not have disqualified 
him for partaking of the Paschal Supper, which was eaten 
when a new day had begun, but that it would have disqualified 
him for eating of the sacrifice called Chagigah, which was 
offered on the first Paschal day immediately after the morning 


service. He states that the term Pesach was applied not only 


to the Paschal Lamb, but to all the Passover sacrifices, 
especially to the Chagigah.* It is difficult to see, however, 
why a writer should choose so misleading a phrase, and the 
weight of opinion among Talmudic scholars seems decisively 
against this interpretation.’ Chwolson, referring to Kirchner, 
says that the latter has misinterpreted the passages in the 
Talmud which he cites to show that np» is used of other offer- 


ings than the lamb. He further states that it is incorrect 


Passover on the proper Scriptural day (p. 192). On this suggestion I can 
offer no opinion. 

1 A thoughtful paper by the Rev. G. H. Box, read before the Society of 
Historical Theology in 1901, suggests that the last supper was not a Pass- 


over, but the ceremony of Kiddfish, which was observed before the Sabbath, 


and also in preparation for the great festivals. 

2 A Translation of the Gospels, with notes, 1855, vol. ii. ; notes on John 
XVili. 28 and xix. 14. ; 

3 The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, vol. i. The 
Four Gospels, 1875, pp. 473 sq. 

4 The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1883, ii. pp. 565 sg. On the 
other side, see Schiirer, Ueber φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα. 

5 See Belser, l.c., p. 539, and the full discussion in Schiirer, where, also, 
the older literature of the subject is referred to. 

¢ L.c., 10. 56. 


—— τ  ν- 


THE LAST SUPPER 63 


to suppose that the uncleanness caused by entering the 
Preetorium would cease in the evening. Contact with or 
proximity to a grave made a man unclean for seven days. 
The dwellings of Gentiles in Palestine, as being virtually 
foreign soil, rendered unclean; and since, as often happened, 
a child prematurely born might be buried in the house, the 
uncleanness lasted for seven days, unless it was certainly 
_ known that there was no hidden grave. This rule applies only 
to Palestine, because in a foreign country the houses were no 
worse than the entire land. 

As a result of this whole investigation, it seems to me to be 
established that, if the Gospels are to be harmonized, the 
Synoptics must yield to John, and not John to the Synoptics. 
According to the present texts, however, they present us with 
different dates for the last supper, and both dates can claim 
the support of ardent advocates. Among others Bleek? 
argues with great force and earnestness that John’s account 
is intrinsically much more probable than that of the other 
Gospels*; and Keim, who takes the opposite view, replies 
with care and learning. We must briefly review the argu- 
ments on each side, which are relied upon by these and other 
writers. 

The 15th Nisan was a holy day, in which, as on the Sabbath, 
no work was to be done, except at least the preparation of 
food.5 All the later notices show that this law was strictly 
observed, and must have been in force in the time of Jesus. 

1 Lc, pp. 57 sq. The duration of the uncleanness is also pointed out | 
by Schiirer, /.c., p. 23 sq. 

2 Hinlett., p. 303 sq. 

8 More recently the same view is maintained by Wendt, Das Johannesev., 
pp. 11 sg., and by Ε΄. Spitta, Die urchrist. Tradationen diber Ursprung u. 
Sinn des Abendmahls, 1893, in Zur Gesch. u. Lit. des Urehrist. 1. 

4 Gesch. Jesu, iii, 469 sqq. J. Réville also’ argues on the same side, Le 


quat. Evang., pp. 281 sqq. 
5 Ex. xii. 16: in Lev. xxiii. 7, Num. xxviii. 18, no exception is mentioned. 


54 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


There are, therefore, three improbabilities in the Synoptic 
narrative: first, that the Sanhedrim should send an armed 
band against Jesus immediately after the sacred meal, 
especially as arms might not be carried on the Sabbath; 
secondly, that the meeting of the Sanhedrim should be held in 
the same night, for it was not allowable to hold a court on the 
Sabbath ; thirdly, that Jesus should be crucified on the 15th, 
for the Jews would think this a desecration of the day. In 
reply to this, Keim points out that according to ancient law 
and custom, executions for the honour of God might take 


place on a Sabbath day. Matthew and Mark, whether their — 


account be correct or not, must have known the Jewish 
custom, and they betray no consciousness of difficulty in their 
narrative. This is, 1 think, Keim’s strongest argument; but 


it disappears if Matthew and Mark, in their earliest form, 


presented a different chronology. Some others are not quite 
accurate. He says that James the brother of John was 
executed at the Passover by command of the Pharisaic king 
Agrippa 1.1 But Acts gives no date for the execution. It 
only says that when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he 


arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, and put 


him in prison, intending to bring him before the people after 
the Passover. Notwithstanding Keim’s opinion, I think the 
natural inference is that Agrippa thought the feast an unsuit- 


able occasion for killing Peter. Keim also states that, accord- — 


ing to the testimony of Hegesippus, James, the brother of the 
Lord, was slain during the Passover.2 The historian says, no 
doubt, that the people were assembled for the Passover, but 
he does not say that the festival had actually begun. More 


important is the statement that R. Akiba, referring to | 


Deuteronomy xvii. 13, which enjoined publicity in the case of 
executions, declared that certain criminals should be brought 


1 Acts ΧΙ. I sqq. - 2 Eus., H. £., ii. 23. 


THE LAST SUPPER 55 


to Jerusalem at one of the three great feasts, in order to be 
executed before the eyes of the whole assembled people. This 
shows that the later laws had not driven out the old view that 
such proceedings did service to God; and Keim thinks that 
the later commands in the Talmud are attempts to enforce the 
stricter requirements of Shammai against the milder practice 
of Hillel, which prevailed in the days of Jesus. But it is 
pointed out by Chwolson that the passage in the Mishnah 
bearing on this subject refers generally to the festival, and 
does not sanction an execution on the first or the seventh day, 
which were peculiarly holy... To the suggestion that the 
execution of Jesus on the holy day may have been due to an 
outbreak of fanatical zeal, Bleek answers that this will not 
apply to the case of the two thieves. We may, however, 
suppose that they were crucified by the Romans, without the 
interference of the Jews; but, then, on the other hand, it is 
not likely that the Romans would have offered such a needless 
insult to Jewish feeling. Keim further contends that what- 
ever difficulty may still remain is lightened by the fact that 
the Passover itself was finished, and the night was less sacred 
than the day; that the trial was hurried through very early 
in the morning, and that the execution itself was handed 
over to the Romans. The difficulty still remains that. the 
Sanhedrim would not have met, and exercised judicial 
functions, on the morning of the 15th; for even if men were 
executed for the glory of God during the feast, they may 
have been condemned beforehand. But it is evident that the 
authorities were driven by their fears to carry the business 
through with unseemly haste, and they may have thought 
that an act of such piety and necessity would justify a 
proceeding to which some legal objection might be taken. 


1 See Mishnah, Synedrion, x. 4 (in Surenhusius, Part iv., p. 258), where the 
expression is simply 5:3. 


56 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


Réville escapes from the difficulty by supposing, contrary to 
the text of all three Synoptics,! that there was not a regular 
assembly of the Sanhedrin, but only a private meeting of some 
priests and doctors of the law.? 

Bleek further thinks it improbable that the spices should 
be prepared, and Jesus buried, on the 15th; but these might 
be allowed as. works of necessity. His reference to Simon 
of Cyrene as returning from his labour in the field is an 
over-statement; for we are only told that he was coming from 
the country, and there is nothing to suggest that he was 
engaged in labour. The allusions to the day of the crucifixion 
as παρασκευή in Matt. xxvii. 62, Mark xv. 42, Luke xxiii. 54, 
cannot be used in evidence, for this does not mean the pre- 
paration of the Passover, but the preparation for the 
Sabbath, as Mark indeed takes the trouble to explain, 


ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον. Paul, referring to the Lord’s Supper, 


says it was instituted on the night in which Jesus was betrayed, 
instead of mentioning the night of the Passover; but his 
further account seems to accord with the regular Paschal 
meal? He calls Christ “our Passover”*; but he might use 
this figure even if the crucifixion took place on the 15th. 
The somewhat conflicting appearances are, however, completely 
reconciled by Chwolson’s hypothesis. The Jewish tradition, 
as contained in the Talmud, is that Jesus was put to death 
on the day before the Passover. But it is hard to say 
whether this is independent of Christian opinion; and it was a 


very common opinion among Christians that Christ, as the 


true Paschal Lamb, must have been slain on the 14th. The 
authorities will be given when we deal with the Paschal 
controversy. 

1 “Ὅλον τὸ συνέδριον, Mk. xiv. 55; Mt. xxvi. 59; Lk. xxii. 66. 


2 Le quat. Evang., p. 282. 
3 1 Cor. xi. 23 sqq. * 1 Conv Fe 


— - τςισυ ν 


THE LAST SUPPER 57 


Lastly, Bleek contends that an error on the part of the 
Synoptics is easily explained. If Christ made use of the 
last common meal for the institution of the Lord’s Supper 
in memory of his death, and brought this into some connec- 
tion with the Old Testament Passover, the supposition would 
easily arise that he held this common meal on the legal 
Passover evening, though in fact it took place a day earlier. 
On the other hand, those who defend the synoptical account 
maintain that the author of the Fourth Gospel had a dog- 
matic reason for altering the day, for he wished to dissociate 
the Christian festival from the Jewish, and to represent Christ 
as the true Paschal Lamb. To this it is replied that the 
writer nowhere speaks of Christ as the Paschal Lamb, and 
certainly gives only the vaguest and most uncertain hints 
that he had any such conception. The text most relied upon! 
may refer to Psalm xxxiv. 20, and not to the law against 
breaking a bone of the Lamb. This view is favoured by the 
reading of the Septuagint, οὐ συντριβήσεται, whereas the 
reading in Exodus xii. 46 is οὐ συντρίψετε, and in 
Numbers ix. 12 οὐ συντρίψουσιν. We have, however, seen 
that Christ was regarded as the Christian Passover (that is, 
as the Paschal Lamb) as early as the time of Paul, and we 
know that this view prevailed at a much later period, so 
that the writer might alter the day of crucifixion, not in order 
to establish a new view, but to adapt his picture to one already 
prevalent. If this was the case, it was not necessary for 
him to be very explicit in his language. On the other hand 
it is remarkable that he lays no stress even on the date, but 
allows it to come out quite casually, so that it might without 
difficulty escape the notice of an ordinary reader. This mode 


1 xix. 36, ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται αὐτοῦ. 
2 The evidence will be given in the ehapter on the Quartodeciman 
controversy. 


58 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


of treatment suggests rather an allusion to a familiar fact 7 
than an attempt to alter the accepted history in a dogmatic 
interest. 

~ Appeal has also been made to astronomical calculations. 
The time of appearance of the new moon, which fixed the 
first day of the month, can be ascertained for any given year. 
Now it appears that in the year 30 the first day of the month 
was Saturday, the moon not being visible till Friday even- 
ing, which with the Jews was the beginning of the day. 
Accordingly, if the crucifixion took place in that year, and on a 
Friday, it must have been on the 14th day of the month, and 
the Johannine account is correct. The times have been 
calculated for the years 27-36, within which the crucifixion 
must have taken place; and out of these there is only one- 
year, 34, in which the crucifixion, if on a Friday, could have 
been on the 15th; and in this year there is a doubt both as to 
the Passover month, and as to the day on which it began, for 
the conjunction of the moon occurred on March 9, which may 
fix the month too early, and on April 7 at one p.m., and the 
hour leaves it uncertain whether the moon would be first seen 
on the evening of Thursday or Friday.! I think we may 
assume that the day of the crucifixion was Friday, although 
Westcott tries to prove that it was Thursday,? but our 
uncertainty about the year prevents us from deciding our 
question by astronomical tables. 

If we endeavour to isolate this question, and settle it on its 
own merits, I cannot but think that the balance of evidence is 
distinctly in favour of the Fourth Gospel. The narrative of 
John, if taken by itself, does not lie open to objection, nor 
does it exhibit in any marked degree the signs of theological 


1 See Salmon, Historical Introduction to the sia of the Books of the New 
Testament, pp. 315-17 
2 Introduction to the ‘Study of the Gospels, pp. 344-5. 


JOHN THE BAPTIST 59 


prepossession. Indeed, the doctrinal interest is absent precisely 
where we might most reasonably expect to find it: for the 
writer omits an account of the last supper, as though he were 
quite satisfied with the histories already in circulation, 
instead of modifying the accepted narrative, so as to sever 
that sacred meal from the Jewish ritual, and impress it with 
an exclusively Christian character. On the other hand, 
the synoptical record is not without difficulties, which them- 
selves suggest the alteration of an earlier account. Chwolson 
shows that the text of John is exactly adapted toa state of 
things which came to an end about 60 A.D., or after the 
destruction of the Temple, and which were not likely to be 
known at the end of the first century to a writer who was 
not a member of one of the rabbinical schools.’ If this be 
correct, the evangelist must either have written from his 
personal knowledge of the circumstances or have had access 
to some trustworthy historical source. 

The picture of John the Baptist differs widely from that“ 
given in the Synoptics. There, as well as in Josephus,’ he is 
the energetic preacher of righteousness, whereas in our Gospel 
he utters the familiar sentiments of the writer. It is true 
that several features of the synoptical account have been 
preserved, and some things have been added, which present 
no serious difficulty. The difference may be in part explained 
by the purpose of the author, which is to record the 

_ “testimony” which the Baptist bore to Christ. But the 
other Gospels are not silent about this testimony, and it 
assumes in them quite another character. There the coming 
one is distinguished by his superior strength, and by the fan 


1See p. 59 for the prescriptions about cleanness and uncleanness, and pp. 
66 sq. for “ the great Sabbath,” the Sabbath in Easter week, so called at a 
_ time when it was regarded as the first of the fifty days up to Pentecost. 
| 2 Ant., XVIII. v. 2. 


60 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


with which he will cleanse his threshing floor. He is indeed 
of far higher worth than John, and will baptize with the 
Holy Spirit; but nothing is said of his person, and, though it 
is stated that John recognized his superior in Jesus, it is not 
alleged that he made any explicit declaration of belief in him. 
In the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, Jesus is fully made 
known to John by the vision of the Spirit descending upon 
him, and is in consequence pronounced to be the Lamb of God 
that takes away the sin of the world, and also the Son οὗ. 
God. In the other accounts the designation of the Son of God 


is ascribed to a voice from heaven, but is not put into the ~ 


mouth of the Baptist. Now it is quite conceivable that a few | 
of the disciples of John may have been drawn to Jesus, not 
only by their own intercourse with him on the banks of the 
Jordan, but by the testimony of their master, who recognised 


in Jesus a grandeur and purity of character which might | 


mark him out as the future Messiah; and one of these 


é 


disciples, looking back through more than half a lifetime, — 


might gratefully suppose that the words of his earliest 
teacher must have been far more explicit than they really- 
were, and contained, at least in germ, all that had since grown ‘ 
to maturity in his thought. But the account, as it st&nds, 15. 


hard to reconcile with historical probability; for if J ohn 7 


had made the complete declaration of faith which is ascribed 


to him, he would have become a disciple of Jesus, instead of Ἷ 


continuing his labour as though the Messiah had not really 


appeared, and it would scarcely have been possible for a body 


5 
᾿ 


of his own disciples to linger on, as they did, for a considerable Ἶ 


period outside the Christian fold. I am, then, driven to the 
conclusion that the Baptist of the Fourth Gospel, who is so 
like the evangelist in his thought and speech, is less historical 
than the rugged and vigorous denouncer of wickedness, the 


ΤΕΥ Ὁ» 30. 5 is sa) 


THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE 61 


declarer of a mighty Messiah, who would winnow out men 
like chaff, the marked and ascetic personality which stands 
out in such bold relief in the short record of the other 
Gospels. 

Another prominent difference between the Johannine Gospel 
and the Synoptics is in the place assigned to the cleansing of 
the Temple. Few, I suppose, would now apply the remedy of 
the harmonists, and maintain that the same event occurred 
twice; but opinions may reasonably diverge as to the prob- 
ability of the one or the other account. To me it seems that 
the historical verisimilitude is wholly on the side of the 

Synoptics. They present an intelligible picture of the course i 
of events, in their dependence one upon another as effect and 
cause. The opposition between Jesus and the authorities has 
been growing in intensity, and he goes up to Jerusalem, fully 
conscious of the hazard which he is incurring, to bear his 
_ testimony against mere external and legal righteousness, and 
the substitution of ritual for holiness. His reputation as a 
) great prophet has preceded him, and he enters the city 
escorted by an exulting multitude. In these circumstances 
.he assumes the right of a prophet, or of a greater than a 
prophet, and clears the Temple of its profane traffic, and 
apparently no resistance is offered, for his right to command 
is for the moment recognized, and the temper of his followers 
is not yet known. The authorities are paralyzed, for the 
enthusiasm of the multitude runs high, and violent measures 
might be dangerous. So they try to bring him into discredit 
by proposing ingenious and difficult questions. Foiled in this, 
they engage the services of the traitor, seize Jesus in the 
middle of the night, hurry through a sort of trial, and per- 
suade Pilate to send him off to execution before the city was 
well awake and aware of what was being done,—for the 
multitudes of which we hear were doubtless partisans of the 


62 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


Sanhedrim. Thus we have a coherent succession of events 
leading to the final catastrophe. But it is most improbable 
that Jesus could have succeeded in cleansing the Temple, if he 
had appeared there as an utterly unknown youth, with no 
following but one or two obscure friends. Even if we can 
imagine something so commanding and impressive in his 
personal appearance and manner that the traders would slink 
away for shame, and offer no resistance to the overthrow of 
their money-tables (and this is very hard to imagine), would 
not the authorities have at once arrested him, instead of 
placidly asking for a sign, and being quite content when none 
was exhibited? If it be said that it is very difficult to 
account for the transference of this incident from the end to 
the beginning of Christ’s ministry except by the supposition © 
that that is its true historical place, it is equally difficult to 
account for its improper transference from the beginning to 
the end. The latter can hardly have arisen from mere mis- 
take, for the fact must have been perfectly well known to the 
first group of disciples, and the last visit to Jerusalem is ( 
precisely the part of Christ’s life that is related with the 
fullest detail, and with the most obvious signs of adequate 
information. But neither is there any discoverable motive for — 
such a modification of the genuine tradition. On the other 
‘hand we have already seen reason to believe that the writer 
‘of the Fourth Gospel was not wholly guided by historical 
considerations, and he may have wished to impress his readers 
from the first with the Messianic authority of Jesus, and his 
resistance to the corruption of the national worship. He 
may also have felt that this incident would bea disturbing 
element in the later portion of his narrative, for he: there 
gives a completely new representation of the course of 
events. Thus we are brought to the question of the raising 
of Lazarus. 


THE RAISING OF LAZARUS 63 


We need not concern ourselves here with the question of 
miracles, but confine ourselves to purely historical considera- 
tions. Negative evidence is proverbially weak, and every 
student will come across very curious instances of omission 
which are not due to ignorance, and are very difficult to 
explain. But while fully aware of this, I always find 
myself strongly impressed by the silence of the Synopties 
respecting this greatest of the miracles. In regard to 
particular narratives, we may sometimes treat the Synoptics 
as practically one witness, but we cannot do so in the case 
of omissions, because each evangelist communicates facts 


_ which are omitted by the others. We have therefore three 


independent omissions of a miracle, which, though not 
included in the last visit, is closely connected with it, and 
prepares the way for the closing scene. Luke’s omission 
is the more noticeable because he is acquainted with Mary 
and Martha, and bestows particular attention on the journey 
to Jerusalem. The accounts, though to a certain extent 
fragmentary, nevertheless present a sufficiently connected 
and intelligible picture, and leave no large empty space for 


_ the insertion of this crowning and decisive sign. This silence 


may have had some good reason with which we are not 
acquainted, but I cannot think of any which to my mind 


_ appears at all satisfactory. If this miracle of the resurrection 
_ and the life was really wrought, it was wrought as a sign 


to the world, and would have been proclaimed on the house- 


_ tops wherever Christianity uttered its voice. But setting 


the Synopties aside, John’s account does not fall in with the 
probabilities of history. If men had really witnessed this 
stupendous exercise of supernatural power, and not doubted 
its reality (for no such doubt is suggested), would they still 


_ have withheld even a formal belief from Jesus? Would they 


7-20 


have gone off to tell the Pharisees? Would the Pharisees, 


64 ; HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


believing that Jesus had actually raised the dead, have 
determined on that account to kill him? Still more, would 
they have intended to put Lazarus also to death, to punish 


him for being raised, and thereby causing so many Jews to 


believe? All this is more like a land of dreams than of 
waking reality ; and when we remember that it is practically 
a repudiation of the older story, it is difficult to suppose that 
we have an actual history before us. But if it be designed 
to set forth in a vivid and picturesque form the truth that 
Jesus is the resurrection and the life, and by his commanding 
spiritual authority raised the dead from the grave of moral 


corruption, and released them from the stifling grasp of © 


Pharisaic teaching, then history returns in a new guise. 
This deeper spirit of life in Christ, this power of kindling 
other souls, was precisely what the Pharisees most feared 
and hated. It was this that men could witness with hearts 
still untouched, and they could not but desire to lay their 
benumbing influence once more on those who had risen into 


the new life of the sons of God, and were the living | 


proofs of Christ’s transcendent power. Thus we have, if © 


not history in the ordinary sense, an interpretation of 
history which pierces into the hidden thoughts and motives 


of men} 


On a survey, then, both of the speeches and the events, I © 


cannot help siding with those who attribute a lower historical 
value to the Fourth Gospel than to the Synoptics, and 


1 In addition to works already mentioned, the reader may consult Dr 
Paul Ewald’s Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu_ seiner 
Lésung, 1890. This little work attempts to explain why so much 


Johannine material is omitted in the synoptical account, on the supposition - 


that both alike are historical. In my opinion it fails to explain why the 


collective tradition of the primitive Church was so exclusively Galilean, — 


and why Luke, who confessedly goes beyond the two early sources, is so 
silent about events and teaching recorded in John. 


CONCLUSION 65 


believing, with the earlier tradition, that it is to be accepted 
more in the spirit than in the letter. And indeed I am not 
sure that we do not all so accept it to a much greater extent 
than we are aware. As mere outward marvels its events 
have little interest for us, and we should miss its deepest 
lessons if we did not penetrate to the spiritual meaning which 
the events are intended to embody. Nor should we be content 
with this biography if it stood alone. To those of us who 
prize it most it is an interpretation of a life already known 


from other sources. It contains profound and grandly 


spiritual suggestions, and exhibits ideas and motives and 
principles; but if we ask for a justification to ourselves of the 
high claims made by Jesus, and consider why his loving words 
affect us so strongly, I think we find the answer, not in the 
book itself, but in the Synoptics. Throughout a large part 
of the work we seem to wander amid majestic thoughts and 
expositions, but hardly to come into contact with a living man ; 
and if we analyse our own state of mind as we read, we 
discover that he who is present to us, and whose grace and 


_ truth we feel, is the speaker of the parables and the beatitudes ; 


_ the friend of publicans and sinners; the man who proffered 


_ tender encouragement to the penitent,and rebuked self- 


_ satisfied hypocrisy; who went about doing good, careless 


sy of his own ease and comfort; who prayed alone upon the 


h 
" 


4 mountains; who loved the fields and the flowers; who blessed 


the little children, and sympathized with the falling sparrow. 


It is to him that we cheerfully accord the greatness and the 


_ high communion in which our Gospel finds the secret of his 
_ power; it is with him that we wish to be in vital union, that 


: we too may have the spirit of a divine humanity; it is as 


coming from him that his words of promise and of peace so 


deeply move us, and it is because he has made his way into 
_ our hearts that we are not offended at hearing that he is the 


5 


66 HOW FAR HISTORICAL 


light of the world, and the giver of life, for so our illumined 
and quickened hearts have said. Thus this Gospel supplements 
the others, not so much by correcting or amplifying their 
record, as by tracing the eternal laws of spiritual life which 
they exemplify, and bringing the life of Christ into its world- 


wide relations. 


; ate : - . ᾿ ω 
ΝΣ "“Ὶ“..-..- -ὀ 


BOOK II 


AUTHORSHIP 


INTRODUCTION 


THE traditional view of the authorship of the Gospel is that 
it was composed and published by the Apostle John in his 
old age at. Ephesus.1 If we except a few insignificant ob- 
jectors, this view was held with undoubting confidence from 
the closing years of the second century (if not earlier) down 
to modern times. The earliest formal attack was made by 
Edward Evanson in 1792, in his work entitled, The Dissonance 
(of the four generally recewed Evangelists and the Evidence 
of their respective authenticity examined. This was followed 
‘in Germany by some works on the same side, which obtained 
‘no lasting celebrity. The first serious and able criticism, 
‘maintaining the negative view, is to be found in Bret- 
schneider’s Probabilia de Evangel et Epistolarum Joannis 
_Apostola Indole et Origine, published in 1820, and written in 
Latin, as the author assures us, that he might not give any 

1 Several manuscripts append a note that it was written thirty or thirty- 
two years after the ascension (see Tischendorf). But no such precise state- 
‘ment occurs in our ancient authorities, and we can hardly attach any weight 


to it. 
67 


68 HISTORY OF OPINIONS 


offence to the “ unlearned plebs,” and that his book might be 
read by foreign theologians.’ In this work all the main lines 
of attack are already laid down, and the conclusion is reached 
that the Gospel was fraudulently written by a Gentile in the 


' 
_— 
———— τὖὺ- 


name of John in the beginning or middle of the second century, 


and that the author most probably lived in Egypt, whence the ~ 


Gospel was brought to Rome by Gnostics. The arguments 
were deemed sufficiently formidable to call forth a number of 


replies; and, as Bretschneider himself retracted his objections, — 


this encounter ended with the complete triumph of the tra- 


ditional view. The judgment of Schleiermacher was naturally — 


given in favour of the apostolic origin of a Gospel which 
seemed to show the deepest insight into the thought and 


character of Christ?; but what is more remarkable, so cool — 


and advanced a critic as Credner also pronounced decisively 


on the same side.* In this connection we must notice also 


the important commentary of Liicke.® 


The next treatise of primary importance, adverse to the 


claim of apostolical authorship, proceeded from F.C. Baur. His — 
views were stated first in the Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1844, — 
and then in his Kritische Untersuchungen tiber die kanon. 
Evangelien, 1847. He endeavours to show that the entire 
Gospel is an unfolding of the dogmatic idea of the Logos, | 


which is formulated in the Proem, and that in subservience to 
this plan the traditional material is treated without any 


regard to historical accuracy. The deviations from the 


Synoptics are due to this cause, and are at the same time 


1 Prefatio, pp. V sq. 


2 See Liicke, Commentar tiber das Evangelium des Johannes, 3rd-ed., 1840, — 


i.p. 100. A history of the controversy up to that time is given, pp. 89 sqq. 
5 In Reden, Erléuterungen zur fiinften Rede, 14 ; and in his Vorlesungen “hem 
Einleit. ins N.T. 
4 Τὴ his Hinleitung ins N.T., 1836. 
5 Commentar uber das Evangelium des Johannes, 1820 ; 3rd ed., 1840. 


& 
ZX 
oe 


BAUR AND HIS SCHOOL 69 


deviations from fact. It follows that the Gospel is not the 


_ work of an apostle. It is distinguished by Gentile and uni- 


versal tendencies which we cannot ascribe to John. It pre- 
supposes the reconciliation of Jewish Christianity and Paulin- 
ism in the unity of the Catholic Church. It transports us into 
the times of Gnosticism, Montanism, and the Paschal contro- 
versy. Consequently, it cannot be of earlier date than the 
second half of the second century. This view was so extreme 
that it was unable to secure any very wide acceptance, and 
for about twenty years those who denied the Johannine 
authorship were to be found almost exclusively among pupils 
of Baur or those who had been strongly influenced by his 
general theory. Among German writers on that side, the best 
known are Schwegler, Késtlin, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, and Volkmar. 
In Holland, Scholten maintained that no trace of the Gospel 
could be found till 170.1 In England I must mention J. J. 
Tayler, who in 1867 published An Attempt to ascertavn the 
Character of the Fourth Gospel, especially im tts relation to 
the first three. He allows that the book originated at Ephesus, 
and thinks the most probable date is between 135 and 163, that 


. _ is, between the destruction of the Jewish nation by Hadrian and 


τ a ee 


“- 


ΩΣ ee 


the death of Papias. The book largely follows the lines laid 
down by Baur, but it is the result of an independent and 
careful investigation, and I need hardly say that it is marked 
by accuracy of scholarship, scrupulous impartiality, and 
spiritual gentleness and insight.2 Throughout this period the 
defenders of the Johannine origin of the Gospel, among whom 
may be mentioned especially Meyer, Bleek, and Luthardt, 
maintained at the same time its historical accuracy, though 
the subjective colouring of the speeches was to some extent 


1 Die diltesten Zeugnisse betreffend die Schriften des Newen Testamentes, 1867, 
p. 180, in the German translation by Dr Manchot. 
2 Second ed., edited by Dr Martineau, 1870. 


ψ- 
»" 


\ 


70 HISTORY OF OPINIONS 


recognized. Weizsicker! admits more freely the influence of 
the writer’s point of view on the presentation of his material ; 
but while defending the J ohannine origin of the book, he 


ascribes its literary composition, not to the Apostle himself, | 


but to one of his disciples, who had made notes of his 
teaching.” 

The appearance of the first volume of Keim’s Geschichte 
Jesu, in 1867, may be taken as marking the beginning of a 
new period. In this work Keim proved himself one of 
the most strenuous assailants of the genuineness of the Gospel, 
but at the same time he made a very long retreat from the 
positions of Baur. He conceded that the Gospel was used by 
Justin Martyr, and brought back its date to the days of 
Trajan, 100-117 A.D? He thought it probable that the author 
was a Jew and not a Gentile, and dismissed as without weight 
some of the arguments which had been considered adverse to 
this view. Thus the opponents were brought much nearer to 
one another, and those who were not under Tiibingen influence 
began to feel the force of the arguments which were pressed 
against the apostolic authorship; and many who still defended 
the genuineness conceded that the author’s point of view and 
purpose in his composition were not primarily historical. 
Thus, in Germany at least, the general result of the controversy 
has been to extend the area of doubt respecting the author- 


ship, or, if not the authorship, the historical accuracy of the 


Gospel, and on the other hand to bring the opponents of its 
genuineness much nearer to the traditional view. 

In England we have hardly reached this position, but the 
defenders and impugners of the Johannine authorship present 

1 Τὴ his Untersuchungen wber die evangelische Geschichte, 1864. 

2 He maintains this view of the composition in his Das Apost. Zeitalter, 
1886; 2nd ed., 1890, though with such modifications that he must now be 


reckoned among the opponents of the genuineness. 
3 Afterwards he placed it about 130. 


—_ 


Ἷ 


: 


ATTACK AND DEFENCE 71 


the most strongly contrasted views both of dogma and of 
history, which are reflected in their judgment of the Gospel. 
Among the assailants we may name Dr Davidson; the author 
of Supernatural Religion, and Dr Martineau? Among the 
defenders are Bishop Lightfoot Bishop Westcott, Professor 
Sanday,° Dr Salmon,® and Archdeacon Watkins.’ America, 
too, has contributed a valuable work on the conservative side 
by Professor Ezra Abbot.® 

Many other works of more or less importance might be 
mentioned, but the foregoing sketch may be sufficient to 
indicate the general drift of opinion. Recent views may be 
seen in M. Jean Reéville’s Le quatriéme Evangile, Professor 
Wendt’s Das Johannesevangelium, and Professor Grill’s 
Untersuchungen iiber die Entstehung des vierten Evan- 
geluwms. 


1 Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 1868 and 1882. 

2 The Seat of Authority in Religion, 1890. 

3 Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genwineness of St John’s 
Gospel, a Lecture originally prepared eighteen years before his death, and 
published in the Expositor in 1890; and also passages in his Essays on 
Supernatural Religion, printed first in the Contemporary Review, and 
published in a volume in 1889. 

4 In The Gospel according to St John, reprinted from The Speaker's 
Commentary, 1st ed., 1881. 

5 Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1872, besides 
various articles. 

6 An Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, 
1st ed., 1885. 

7 Modern Criticism considered in tts Relation to the Fourth Gospel, being the 
Bampton Lectures for 1890. 

8 The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel; External Evidences. Boston, 1880. 


A full notice of the literature, up to the date of their publication, is 
contained in the Bampton Lectures, of which I have made use in the above 
sketch. I am also indebted to Schiirer, Ueber den gegenwartigen Stand der 
johannetschen Frage, in the Vortriige der theologischen Konferenz zu Giessen, 
v. Folge, 1889 ; and to introductions to the New Testament or to John. 


SECTION I 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 


CHAPTER I 


GENERAL STATE OF BELIEF IN THE LATER PART OF THE 
SECOND CENTURY 


WE must now proceed to a survey of the evidence bearing on 
the authorship of the Gospel. It is usually assumed, though 
it is pure assumption, that the book was published 
anonymously. For anything we can tell, it may have 
appeared from the first with its existing title. We do not, 
however, know that this was the case, and it is certainly 
possible that the title was not prefixed till the four Gospels 
were collected into a single composite work.’ Moreover, the 
title “according to John” does not necessarily imply author- 
ship, though it does not preclude it, and was commonly 
understood of authorship in the early Church, the titles 
signifying the Gospel-story as presented by different writers, 
whose names are attached. In this state of uncertainty we 
are necessarily dependent on the readers of the Gospel for our 
knowledge of the author’s name, and therefore our first duty 


1 This supposition would sufficiently explain the phrase apparently 
quoted from the Alogi by Epiphanius (Her., 11. 18): τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ 
εἰς ὄνομα Ιωάννου. 

72 


— 
δὰ να 


IRENZUS 73 


is to estimate the value of their testimony. We must begin 
with the period in which our information is sufficiently full 
and clear. 

Irenzus, a native of Asia Minor, who was Bishop of Lyons 
in the last quarter of the second century, is our first witness. 
He says: “Then [that is after the publication of the other 
three Gospels] John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned 
upon his breast, himself also published the Gospel, while he 
was dwelling at Ephesus in Asia,”1 and he remained in the 
church at Ephesus till the times of Trajan.? Alluding to 
heretics, he tells us that “Others, in order to frustrate the 
gift of the Spirit, which in most recent times according to the 
_ pleasure of the Father has been poured out on the human 
_ race, do not admit that form which is according to the Gospel 
- of John, in which the Lord promised that he would send the 
_ Paraclete; but they reject at the same time the Gospel and 
: the prophetic Spirit.”? We must observe that Irenzus does 
not say that these men questioned the authorship of the 
' Gospel. The statement implies no more than that, for dog- 
_ matic reasons, they did not receive it into their canon; and 
- the rejection of the reputed authorship of a book, and the 
' rejection of its canonical authority, are two very difierent 
; things. Irenzus nowhere asserts that anyone denied the 
_ Johannine authorship of the Gospel. He always assumes the 
authorship, just as we assume that of any modern work. 
_ There is no evidence that he ever investigated the question, 
_ or supposed that there was any question to investigate. The 
reasonable inference is that he simply repeats the opinion with 
_which he was familiar from his childhood. He must natur- 
ally have known many men much older than himself, who 
' were able to tell him about the state of things before he was 
_ born; and this probability is brought more vividly home to 


‘ier, Τατὶ 1. 13 2111. iil. 4, Se SE ὁ; 


74 BELIEF AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY 


us when we learn that in his youth he had listened to the 
discourses of Polycarp, whose memory went back into the 
first century, and that he succeeded the venerable Pothinus 
in the bishopric. Some of these points will be discussed in 
another connection. 

Tertullian’s testimony is similarin kind. He was converted 
to Christianity some time before the end of the second century ; 
and as he simply assumes the genuineness of the Gospel, we 
may fairly suppose that he represents the current opinion of 
the time. He made himself acquainted, however, with some 
of the older literature, and Justin Martyr, among others, is 
mentioned as a writer whom he particularly wished to follow.? 
He was, no doubt, in spite of his legal knowledge, a man of 
hasty and superficial judgment, but he was honest and inde- 
pendent, and of a temperament that would have made him 
glory in attacking anyone who denied the authenticity of 
the Gospel, so that we may justly conclude that for him, 
as for Ireneus, there was no Johannine question ‘to be 
considered. 

Clement of Alexandria, one of the most thoughtful, learned, 
large-minded, and dispassionate of the early Christian writers, 
is equally free from doubts of his own, and unaware of others’ 
doubts. Like Tertullian, he was a convert to Christianity. 
But he was not content with the wisdom of a single teacher. 
He travelled in Greece, Magna Grecia, Syria, Egypt, and the 
East, either for the express purpose of gaining information 
about Christian teaching, or at least taking advantage of his 
journeys to hear the most remarkable men, and pick up from 
them the apostolic tradition? The teacher whom he found 
most satisfactory he discovered “concealed in Egypt,” a 
“Sicilian bee, gathering the spoil of the flowers of the pro- 


1 For special references, see Adv. Marcionem, iv. 2 and 5s. 
2 Adv. Valent., 5. 3 Strom., i. 1. 


THEOPHILUS: MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 7ς 


phetic and apostolic meadow.” This was probably Pantzenus, 
the head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria, whom he 
has named elsewhere as his teacher. 

Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, in his Apology addressed to 
Autolycus, quotes verbatim the opening verses of the Fourth 
Gospel, and ascribes them to John; but he does not say who 
John was, except that he was one of the inspired, of 
avevuatopopo. This manner of reference, however, con- 
fessedly indicates the apostle. 

The Muratorian Fragment, though of rather uncertain date, 
belongs to the same period, and contains the earliest extant 
story about the origin of the Gospel :—“Of the fourth of the 
Gospels, John, one of the disciples [Johannis ex decipolis. 
Something seems wanting,—perhaps ‘John is the author,’ or 
perhaps the words are a sort of heading of a separate extract]. 
| To his fellow-disciples and bishops exhorting [him] he said, 
Fast with me for three days from to-day; and whatsoever 
shall have been revealed to each, let us relate it to one another. 
On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the 
apostles, that, all reviewing, John should write down all 
things in his own name. And therefore, although in the 
single books of the Gospels different principles [or, beginnings] 
are taught, nevertheless it makes no difference to the faith of 
believers, since by one leading spirit all things are declared in 
_ all concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, concerning 
_ the resurrection, concerning the intercourse with his disciples, 
- and concerning his twofold advent, the one in the humility 
_ of contempt, which [here something is wanting, equivalent to 
‘has taken place’].... the second glorious in regal power 
which is future. What wonder is it then if John so con- 
 fidently produces single [circumstances] even in his epistles, 


_ 7 Inthe Institutions, according to Eusebius, H. Εἰ.) v. 11, vi. 13 ; and 
Photius, 109. ahi κκν 


76 BELIEF AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY 


saying in his own person, ‘ What we have seen with our eyes, 
and heard with ears, and our hands have handled, these things 
we have written to you.’ For thus he professes himself not 
only a seer and hearer, but also a writer of all the wonderful 
things of the Lord in order.” 

This narrative has unquestionably a legendary air, and is 
almost, if not quite, destitute of support. But this legendary 
account does not prove that the Gospel, like the Shepherd of 
Hermas, had only appeared very recently, nuperrime tempori- 
bus nostris, as the author says. In regard to the recent book, 
we have a plain matter-of-fact statement; and, except on the 
supposition of deliberate fraud, the legend seems to show that 


the book had been so long in use in the Church that the real — 


occasion of its production could no longer be ascertained. The 
only question of literary importance is this——is there any 
apparent inconsistency between the legend and the Johannine 
authorship of the book? Admitting, for the sake of argument, 


that John wrote this Gospel in his old age, would not this — 
fact, combined with the supplementary character of the work, ἰ 


give rise to critical conjectures as to its occasion and object ? 
And as instances might be produced in which modern criticism 
presents conjectures as ascertained facts, is it not probable 
that in that very uncritical age, the second century, conjec- 
tures may have similarly transformed themselves into legends ? 
The legend, again, is likely to form itself either on a basis of 
fact, or at least on a generally accepted belief. Now, if 


people, when this canon was written, did not generally believe 
that John was the author of the Gospel, it is extremely 


difficult to explain how the legend could have arisen. We 
must, therefore, suppose that the canon represents the pre- 
vailing belief of the time in regard to the authorship of the 
Gospel, especially as it is so candid about the Shepherd, and 
one or two other books. But let us suppose that the belief 


MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 77 


was confined to the writer himself, and that the Gospel had 
really appeared later than the middle of the second century ; 
how is it to be explained that the legend seems to take for 
granted that the book had been long known and used, and 
does not interweave some supernatural reason for the total 
concealment of an apostolic book for more than half a century | 
after the writer’s death? According to some modern theories 
the Fourth Gospel was first published nwperrime temporibus 
nostris, perhaps later even than the Shepherd itself ; and if it 
was so, the writer of the canon must have known it; and even 
if he was the most stupid man that ever lived, it must have 
struck him as odd that the Church had never heard of it 
before. Yet, as though by some general conspiracy, this 
extremely odd circumstance has been so carefully excluded 
both from history and legend as to leave not a trace behind. 
On the whole, then, the legend appears to me to point to a 
date for the book considerably earlier than the middle of the 
second century, to attest virtually the general belief of the 
time soon after the middle of the second century that John 
was its author, and to contain nothing that in itself tends to 
throw discredit upon that belief. ἮΝ 

We must also notice the statement of the canon that the 
Gospels contained vaa principia. Whatever precisely these 
words may mean, they show that the critical faculty was 
sufficiently awake to call attention to apparent inconsistencies 
among the Gospels. It seems not unlikeiy that some of 
Epiphanius’s Alogi are the persons whose objections gave rise 
to this remark. Epiphanius’s statement, λέγουσι δὲ τὸ κατὰ 
᾿Ιωάννην εὐαγγέλιον, ἐπειδὴ μὴ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔφη, ἀδιάθετον εἶναι,1 
represents the very contention which is here repelled, so that 
_ probably the words of our fragment contain the earliest reply 
to the Alogi. Be this as it may, the fact that an objection is 

1 Heer,, li. 18. 


78 BELIEF AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY 


appended to the notice of the Fourth Gospel, and briefly 
answered, confirms the argument used above in regard to the 
late appearance of that Gospel; for if its recent publication 
had been urged as an objection against its Johannine author- 
ship, or its credibility, this would seem a most fitting place 
to allude to it. 

It was suggested by Credner! that the fragment dis- 
tinguishes between John the disciple, the author of the 
Gospel, and John the apostle, who wrote the Apocalypse and 
the two short epistles; and in support of this suggestion he 
points out that Andrew, and not John, is called an apostle, 
and dwells on the fact that Andrew can be introduced only 
to give apostolic sanction to a non-apostolic work, and that 
it was necessary to prove by an appeal to the First Epistle 
that the author was an eye-witness of the life of Christ, 
though this would have followed as a matter of course if he 
was one of the apostles. To the first of these arguments I 
think Tregelles gives a sufficient reply. He says: “There 
_ are two reasons why in this place dzsciple should be the 
designation of John: first (and specially), because another 
John had been mentioned just before who was not a disciple 
of our Lord; and thus ‘Johannes ex discipulis’ was a simple 
mode of distinguishing him from the Baptist; secondly, 
disciple is the habitual term used by John himself in 
speaking of himself and the other apostles” ;* and further on, 
“ Andrew is here described as ‘ex apostolis ’ to distinguish, 
him apparently from the ‘condiscipulis et episcopis’ from 
whom the request had come to John that he would write.” ὃ 
It may be added that had the author of the fragment intended 
to draw this distinction, he would hardly have left it to a 
doubtful inference. As we do not know the origin of the 


1 Gesch. des neutestamentlichen Kanon, 1860, pp. 158 sq. 
2 Canon Muratorianus, 1867, p. 33. 3 Τὸ pe 34. 


MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 79 


story about Andrew, we cannot attach much weight to the 
second argument. The supposition may have been suggested 
by the attestation in the Gospel itself, “We know that his 
testimony is true,’! which seems to imply the sanction of an 
eye-witness of the events recorded, and Andrew may have 
been selected, as Mr Tayler supposes, because he is mentioned 
in the Gospel as “the first who became a disciple after the 
recognition of Jesus by John the Baptist.”? The inference 
from these facts may have been assisted by a desire to confirm 
the authority of the Gospel against the attacks of the Alogi. 
In regard to the third argument, we must observe that the 
Epistle is used to prove, not that the reputed author of the 
Gospel was an eye-witness of the circumstances which he 
relates, but that the author of the Epistle professes to have 
written an account of these circumstances, and so guarantees 
the genuineness of the Gospel. We need therefore have no 
hesitation in regarding the fragment as a testimony that the 
Gospel was believed to be the work of John the apostle. 

The later testimony is simply confirmatory of that which 
has been just presented, and it is not necessary to dwell upon 
it in the present connection. 

We have now seen that in the last quarter of the second 
century, and subsequently, if we except the shadowy Alogi, 
the Gospel was universally and without hesitation received 
as the work of the Apostle John, who composed it at Ephesus 
in his old age, after the publication of the other Gospels. 
This, then, is the view which, following a well-established 
rule in literary questions, we are to accept unless adequate 
reason can be shown for our not doing so. Undoubtedly great 
and surprising mistakes have been made in regard to author- 
ship ; but nevertheless the proportion which correct judgments 
and traditions of this kind bear to the incorrect is so over- 


1 xxi. 24. 2 Theological Review, July 1869, p. 341. 


80 BELIEF AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY 


whelming that we always assume the popular belief to be — 


sound, and accept a book as the genuine work of its reputed | 


author, unless convincing arguments can be advanced for 
rejecting it, or at least placing it under suspicion. Very few 
of us could prove, without reference to books, that Milton was 


the author of Paradise Lost, and yet we are so sure of the fact — 
that we do not care to inquire into the evidence. Now if © 


only fragments of the literature between Milton’s and our 
own time survived the ravages of the next seventeen 
centuries, and in these fragments it happened that there 
were only obscure references to the poem, and no statement 
that it had been written by Milton, some critic of that future 
period might say that our statements in the case were worth 


nothing, for we had never examined the question, and had no 
critical grounds to go upon. This would be perfectly true, | 
and our critic would dismiss us with a lofty contempt. But — 


we who are now living are aware that our individual weakness 
% 

constitutes the very strength of the case. For we are not 

giving an opinion of our own, or expressing the result of an 


investigation in which we might have made mistakes; we — 


are simply giving utterance to a universal belief, which 
presumably rests upon good grounds. For us there is no 
question requiring critical skill to decide, and it is this fact 
that makes our testimony of weight. So if we can only cease 


to regard Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement, and their con- | 


temporaries as abstract symbols of credulity, and remember 


that they were after all men very like ourselves, and living — 


in communities which were scattered about from Gaul to 
Syria, and round through Egypt to Africa, I think we shall feel 
that the undoubting and uncritical acceptance of the Gospel 


as John’s over this vast area is a very significant fact, and 


furnishes a strong evidence of the genuineness of the work. ᾿ 
For if the Gospel be genuine, the fact is accounted for; but ἢ 


— 


ITS SIGNIFICANCE 81 


it be not genuine, the fact remains as a riddle, of which I am 
not aware that any satisfactory solution has ever been offered. 
Of course I do not say that this is conclusive, for there may 
be an explanation which it is no longer possible to discover ; 
but I do say that the argument is a real and a strong one, 
and that those who can see nothing in it simply show that 
they are uncritical, and unable to estimate the force of 
evidence. But while I believe that the wide and undoubting 
acceptance of the Gospel affords a strong evidence of author- 
ship, I think it affords a much stronger evidence of early 
date, and carries us quite irresistibly back to an older 
generation. To revert to the case of Paradise Lost, I might 
be mistaken in supposing it to be Milton’s, for there might 
have been an original mistake which vitiated the whole 
tradition; but I could hardly be mistaken in thinking that 
I knew it when I was a boy, and that older people, whose 
lives went back into the previous century, took it for granted 
that it was Milton’s. Testimony to the existence of the poem, 
therefore, which was tendered in 1902, would be valid for 
1850, and would afford a high degree of probability that the 
work was known at least forty or fifty years before the 
latter date. In the same way the testimony to the presumed 
origin of the Gospel which we meet with in the latter part of 
the second century points almost with certainty to its 
existence a generation earlier, and takes us back with 
considerable probability some sixty or seventy years. It is 
true, no one says expressly, “I knew this Gospel when I was a 
_ boy, and received it from my parents” ; but the total impression 
of the evidence, as well as particular statements, lead to the 
conclusion that it had been handed down from a previous 

generation, that even to that earlier generation it was not a 
_ new book, and that it had been for a considerable period in 
ecclesiastical use. This conclusion is confirmed, ἠδ νον. 


82 BELIEF AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY 


by the absence of any allusion to the late appearance of the 
Gospel, even for the purpose of reconciling its recent publication 
with its Johannine authorship, and by the fact that even the 
Alogi, those convenient, but in this case unaccommodating, 
friends of the critics, did not venture to deny its early origin, 
but ascribed it to Cerinthus. 

We are not, however, without an important link of con- 
nection between the end and the middle of the second 
century. 

The case of Tatian is peculiarly interesting, because we know 
that he was a hearer of Justin Martyr, and thus he serves to 
bridge the gulf between that writer and Irenzus. The date 


ἣ 


4 


of his Diatessaron is unknown, and it may be as late as 170 or © 


even later; but as it was in favour in the orthodox churches 
of Syria, it is perhaps more likely that it was composed before 
he became an avowed teacher of heretical doctrine. Vigorous 
attempts were at one time made to prove that the traditional 
accounts of this work were entirely wrong; but it may now 
be considered as established that the “apologists” were the 
sound critics, and that the Diatessaron was, on the whole, a 
harmony of our four Gospels. Owing to the nature of the 
composition, it gives us no information about the authors or 
the dates of the evangelical narratives; but the important 
point is established that our canonical Gospels were regarded 
as the authentic records of the life of Christ, and were treated, 
just as Irenzeus treats them, as forming one fourfold Gospel. 
But perhaps more important for our present purpose is the 
fact that Tatian cites the Fourth Gospel in his Oratio ad 
Grecos;} which is shown by the evidence to have been 
written during the lifetime of Justin, and possibly, in accord- 


1 It may be sufficient to say that the correctness of this statement is 


admitted by Baur, Untersuch., p. 356 8.7) and only a very unreasonable 
scepticism can call it in question. 


ae 


TATIAN 83 


ance with some slight indications, as early as the year 153.1 
According to the custom of apologists, he does not name the 
author, and we cannot with confidence infer more than that 
the Gospel was then in use, and had obtained some degree of 
notoriety. But from the use which he subsequently made 
of it, I think we are warranted in believing that, when he 
became a convert to Christianity, he found it already estab- 
lished as one of the recognised documents of the religion. 


1 See the evidence fully given by Zahn in Forschungen zur Gesch. des 
neut. Kanons αν. der altkirchl. Literatur, 1. Theil; Tatian’s Diatessaron, 1881, 
pp- 274 sqqg. ; and by Harnack in Teate uw. Untersuch., i., 1882, pp. 196 sqq. 
The result of their inquiry is, however, disputed. 


CHAPTER II 
JUSTIN MARTYR 


WE must now take a further step back towards the first century. 
The evidence hitherto adduced makes it unlikely that Justin 
Martyr was unacquainted with the Gospel. We haveseen that 
the testimonies about the end of the second century are valid 
for a space of time reaching at least as far back as Justin, and 
that his own disciple quoted the book while his master was 
still alive. Further, we know that the apologist composed a 
work, which has been lost, against all the heresies that had 

arisen! In this work he would naturally present his view 

of the Christian Scriptures much more definitely than he | 
thought suitable to apologetic treatises. At a later time this’ 
lost refutation of heresies was held in high esteem. Irenzeus 

quotes with approval the Treatise against Marcion,? and 

Tertullian, as we have seen, refers to him as one whom he 


wished to follow.* His lost writings would hardly have en- 
joyed this high repute if they had exhibited a view of the 
Gospels which deviated widely from the orthodox opinion. | 
Justin was always looked upon as thoroughly sound; and 
those who had far better means of judging than are open to 
us breathe not the slightest suspicion on his proper use of the 
canon. These considerations establish an historical presump- 
tion in favour of his use of the Fourth Gospel, and, if the 
evidence from his surviving works were evenly balanced, 


1 Apol., i. 26. 2 Her., Iv. vi. 2. 3 Adv. Valent., 5. 
84 


- 


DATE OF HIS WORKS © 85 


would require us to give our verdict upon that side. But I do 
not think that the evidence is evenly balanced. I believe his 
extant works contain indications of his use of the Gospel 
which cannot be set aside by any just criticism. When we 
place these two lines of argument together, we have what, to 
my own mind, amounts to a convincing proof. I think I am 
correct in saying that this conclusion is now accepted by 
many, if not by most, critics of various schools, though a few 
_ very able men still believe that the evidence is adverse. The 
agreement is certainly not so complete as to render the follow- 
ing statement of the evidence superfluous. 

The works from which our evidence must be taken consist 
of a long Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius; a shorter 
Apology, addressed to the Roman Senate; and a Dialogue with 
Tryphon, a Jew, containing an elaborate defence of Christian 
doctrine. The earliest of these works is the First Apology. 
Its publication was formerly assigned to the year 138; but a 
change of opinion was brought about, chiefly by two articles 
of Volkmar’s, and one, written independently, from the pen 
of Dr Hort,? the former placing it about 150, the latter in 
145 or 146. Dr G. Kriiger defended the early date in an 
article which appeared in 18g90,? and seems to have retained 
the same opinion when he published his Geschichte der 
altchristlichen Litteratur* Mr F. G. Kenyon, however, has 
produced what appears to be decisive evidence in favour of 
Volkmar’s conclusion. In chapter 29 of the Apology, reference 
is made to Felix, the governor in Alexandria. A papyrus in 
the British Museum mentions this Felix as the successor of 
M. Petronius Honoratus, who is shown by a Berlin papyrus to 
have been prefect in 148, when he was at the beginning 


1 In the Theol. Jahrbb., 1855. 
2 Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, iii., 1857. 
3 Jahrbb. f. prot. Theol., xvi. 4 1895, p. 67. 


86 JUSTIN MARTYR 


of his term of office. Another papyrus proves that Felix 
-had ceased to be prefect before August 154.1 We must 
accordingly place the First Apology soon after 150. The 
Second Apology was probably written not very much later. 
The Dialogue is placed by Volkmar about 155, but it is 
perhaps not quite so early. These writings, therefore, 
represent the state of things about the middle of the second 
century. How long Justin had been a Christian we do not 
know, but it is evident he was not a novice, and he had 
already, as we have seen, composed a treatise against heresies. 
If this treatise had been preserved, it would probably have 
cleared up many questions which now remain in uncertainty. 
All the surviving works are defences of Christianity against 
external enemies; and it was the purpose of apologists to 
establish the truth of their doctrines by arguments which 
would appeal to those outside the Church. The infallibility 
of the New Testament was not then the fundamental dogma, 
and books of evidences were not intended for the information 
of modern critics. It is not till we come to works against 
heretics that we meet with appeals to the New Testament as 
authoritative, and learn what was the general ecclesiastical 
belief in regard to it. This, I think, is too often forgotten, 
and much critical argument depends for its effect upon 
unreasonable expectations. 

We must now follow the indications of Justin’s acquaintance 
with the Fourth Gospel.” 

1 In a letter in The Academy, Feb. 1, 1896, p. 98. . 

2 The following treatment of the evidence, reaching an affirmative © 
conclusion, was originally published in three articles on Justin Martyr — 
and the Fourth Gospel in the Theological Review for October 1875, and ~ 
April and July 1877. It is now presented with a few modifications and — 
additions. I may refer also to Ezra Abbot’s Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, — 
pp. 20 8424. Fora discussion reaching a different conclusion, see two articles — 


in the Modern Review for July and October 1882, On Justin’s use of the 
Fourth Gospel, by Dr Edwin A, Abbott. 


PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 87 


In the 61st chapter of his First Apology, Justin Martyr 
gives an account of baptism as practised among the Christians 
of his time. He says that those who are convinced of the 
truth of the Christian doctrine, and profess their ability to 
live in accordance with it, are to fast and pray for the 
_ forgiveness of their past sins. He proceeds thus: “Then they 
are brought by us to a place where there is water, and in the 
manner of being born again in which we ourselves also were 
born again, they are born again!; for they then bathe in the 
water in the name of the Father and sovereign God of the 
universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy 
Spirit. For Christ also said, Unless ye be born again, ye shall 
not enter into the kingdom of heaven. But that it is impossible 
for those who are once born to enter into the wombs of those 
_ who brought them forth is evident to all.”? It cannot be 
denied that this passage immediately reminds one of John 111. 
3-5, and all critics, as far as I know, acknowledge that there 
is some relation which is more than accidental between the 
two passages. As little can it be denied that it is not quoted 
verbally from the Fourth Gospel, but has variations both in 
language and meaning. 

Hilgenfeld, in his Introduction to the New Testament, 
admits the possibility of Justin’s acquaintance with the Fourth 
Gospel, though he made a very subordinate use of it. But in 
regard to the passage under consideration, he adheres to his 
former opinion, that it wants precisely that feature which is 
characteristic of John iii. 3, and that it is incomparably more 
closely related‘ to Matthew xviii. 3, “ Except ye be converted, 


1 Kal τρόπον ἀναγεννήσεως, ὃν καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἀναγεννήθημεν, ἀναγεννῶνται. 

2*Ay μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, ov μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. Ὅτι 
δὲ καὶ ἀδύνατον εἰς τὰς μήτρας τῶν τεκουσῶν τοὺς ἅπαξ γεννωμένους ἐμβῆναι, 
φανερὸν πᾶσίν ἐστι. 

3 Einleitung in das N. T., 1875, p. 67, Anm. I. 

4 Ungleich niiher verwandt mit. 


88 JUSTIN MARTYR 


and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the 
kingdom of heaven,” and he thinks we must.assume a Gospel 
akin to that of Matthew, from which also the passage in the 
Clementine Homilies, to be presently noticed, is drawn. In 
his earlier work on the Gospels of Justin,) he points out, in 
evidence of this position, the following obvious deviations 
from the Johannine text: 1. It has not the solemn intro- 
duction, “ Verily, verily, I say unto thee.” 2. It speaks simply 
of regeneration, instead of birth “from above,”? or “from 
water and spirit.” 3. The saying ascribed to Christ is in the 
second person, not in the third. 4. Instead of “he cannot” 
see or enter the kingdom, Justin has, “ye shall not enter.” 
5. Instead of “the kingdom of God” he has “the kingdom of 
heaven.” From these facts Hilgenfeld concludes that “the 
whole agreement of Justin with John reduces itself to the 
general thought of the necessity of baptism to salvation.” He 
points out that Justin’s citation agrees verbally with Matthew 
XVill. 3, with the single deviation that instead of “Except ye 
be converted and become as little children,’ which, he says, 
has substantially the same meaning, Justin has the simple 
“Except ye be born again.” He admits, however, that this 
deviation proves that he did not take the words from 
Matthew, but must have used a text intermediate between 
Matthew and John. 


Whatever may be the value of these arguments, their force — 


is increased by the occurrence of a similar passage, marked 
by similar deviations, in the Clementine Homilies.2 The 
writer is insisting that baptism is necessary to salvation, 
even if you were more pious than all the pious men that 


1 Kritische Untersuchungen οὐδὸν die Evangelien Justins, 1850, p. 214. 
The English reader may see Supernatural Religion, vol. ii., pp. 306 sqq., in 
the sixth edition. 

2 ἄνωθεν. = xi, 26 


Te 


PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 89 


ever lived. Mentioning its advantages, he says that “being 


| 


ἢ 
, 


by water born again unto God,’! we change our first natural 
birth, and so are able to obtain salvation; “but otherwise 
it is impossible; for thus the prophet swore unto us, saying, 
Verily, I say unto you, except ye be born again by living 
water into the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, ye shall 
not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”? It will be observed 
that this passage contains Justin’s words exactly, but has 
also other words prefixed or inserted. These additional 
words are sufficient to show that we are not dealing with two 


exact quotations from a common source. Volkmar,®? however, 


thinks that the Homilies do not give us the correct form of 
the Clementine text. He finds a nearer approach to this 
in the Recognitions, which have been preserved to us in the 
translation of Rufinus. There the passage stands thus‘: “For 
thus the true prophet testified to us with an oath, saying, 
Verily, I say unto you, except a man be re-born again from 
water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” This 
is nearer the Johannine text, but Volkmar thinks that the 
change from the second to the third person is to be ascribed 
to Rufinus. This is not improbable, for the later Epitome 
agrees with the Homilies in the use of the second person. He 
then contends that the simpler form of quotation must be the 
more original, and concludes that the text from which the 
quotation was taken must have agreed verbally with the 
form which it assumes in Justin, except that it contained the 
clause, “ Verily, I say unto you,” which he thinks Justin omits 


1 ἀναγεννηθεὶς θεῷ. 

2 ἀμὴν ὑμῖν λέγω, ἐὰν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε ὕδατι ζῶντι, εἰς ὄνομα πατρός, υἱοῦ, 
ἁγίου πνεύματος, οὗ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. 

3 Ueber Justin den Mairtyrer, pp. 14 sqq. 

4 “Sic enim nobis cum sacramento verus propheta testatus est dicens : 
amen dico vobis, nisi quis denuo renatus fuerit ex aqua, non introibit in 
regna celorum.” 


90 JUSTIN MARTYR 


as unimportant. The addition of the words “from water” 
he ascribes to the author of the Clementines,.and thinks that 
the reviser to whom we owe the Homilies inserted the 
baptismal formula in order to make the reference to baptism 
still more distinct. This may be a correct description of the 
genesis of our present text; but if so, it only illustrates the 
extreme looseness with which some of the ancient writers 


—— 


handled quotations. Be this as it may, we have not only to — 


account for Justin’s deviations from the Johannine text. but 
to explain the fact that another writer makes several ot vhe 
same deviations. We cannot account for this identity of 
variation by supposing that the writer of the Clementines 
copied Justin, for the passages have no resemblance beyond 
the fact that they both treat of baptism, and in doing so quote 
the saying in question. We must therefore endeavour to 
estimate one by one the value of the deviations, in order to 
judge how far it is probable that two independent writers 
could have adopted them without the control of some Gospel 
no longer extant. 

1. The omission of the solemn introduction is of no import- 
ance. For, in the first place, it is frequently omitted in 


quotations of this passage by writers who are undoubtedly — 


quoting it from John; Irenzus,! Tertullian? (three times), 


Cyprian,? the author of the Homilies on Luke (ascribed to — 


Origen),* a Docetist in Hippolytus,> Athanasius,®° Chrysostom,’ 
and others. Again, this introduction to important sayings 
is as characteristic of Matthew as of John; for Matthew uses 
it thirty times against John’s twenty-five, but with this 
curious difference, that John always has the ἀμήν twice. Now 


1 Fragment xxxv. in Stieren. * De Bapt., 12, 13 ; De Anima, 39, 

3 Adv. Judeos, i. 12. 4 xiv, 5 Ref. Omn. Heer., viii. το. 
& De Incarnatione Verbi Det, p. 59, B. Bened. edit. 

7 Hom. in Johan., 25 and 26. 


PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION gl 


the Clementine Homilies have the ἀμήν only once; but it will 
hardly be maintained that the omission of the second ἀμήν 
might not be accidental, or, indeed, that it might not be omitted 
on purpose as unnecessary, especially as pseudo-Athanasius,’ 
and Chrysostom in one of his quotations,? have the same 
peculiarity. This first deviation, so far as it has any value, 
separates the Clementines and Justin. 

2. The change from “born from above” into “born again” 
is not unimportant. While the former includes the latter, 
the latter does not include the former, and, in my opinion, 
fails to express adequately the deep thought that belongs to 
the Fourth Gospel. Some considerations, however, diminish 
the importance of this variation. In the first place, Justin’s 
context needs only the idea of regeneration, and suggests the 
precise word which he uses. In the second place, the word 
ἄνωθεν was in early, to say nothing of later times, inter- 
preted in the sense of “again” as well as in the sense of “ from 
above.” Chrysostom? expressly tells us that some thought it 
equivalent to ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, and others to ἐξ ἀρχῆς, which I 
suppose we must render in such a connection by the phrase, 
“all over again.” The Vulgate renders it by denuo both in 
the third and the seventh verses; and Nonnus, in his metrical 
paraphrase, represents it in the third verse by τὸ δεύτερον (the 
second time), and in the seventh by ἑτέραν βαλβῖδα γενέθλης 
(another starting-point of birth). It is possible that Justin 
may have understood the word in the same sense as Jerome 
and Nonnus, and believed that his own expression was per- 
fectly synonymous with that in the Gospel; or, if we cannot 
’ suppose him ignorant of the true sense of ἄνωθεν, he may 
nevertheless have supposed that the idea which it contained 
was adequately preserved in the single word “regeneration,” 


1 Questiones ad Antiochwm ; answer to question Iot. 
2 Hom. in Johan., 25. 3 Hom. in Johan., 24. 


92 JUSTIN MARTYR 


which must have carried to Christian ears the whole doctrine 
of baptismal and spiritual birth. But, further, the passage is 
actually cited with the reading ἀναγεννηθῃ by Irenzeus and 
Athanasius. The former obviously refers to the fifth verse, 
for he adds, δι’ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος ᾿; and notwithstanding 
his verbal inaccuracy, we cannot doubt that so orthodox a 
Father believed that he was correctly representing the Fourth 
Gospel. Athanasius is content with a very vague and inaccu- 
rate reference, but in the case of so late a writer I think no 
one will be disposed to call it in question. His words are: 
“ Whence also he said to the Jews, Except a man be re-born,? 
meaning not the birth from women, as they supposed, but — 
the re-generated and re-created soul.’? Had this been in 
Justin, it would have been easy to prove that it could not 
have been taken from our present Gospel. Tertullian also 
has “reborn from water and spirit” in one of his quotations,‘ 
and the same text is presented by the Homilies on Luke, 
published among the works of Origen. This, indeed, is the 
reading of the Old Latin and the Vulgate in the fifth verse, 
as though from a MS., which contained ἀναγεννηθῇ, and con- 
sequently its recurrence in Latin writers is too frequent to 
require any further citations. 

Now at this point the Clementine Homilies break com- 
pletely away from the text as presented by Justin, and insert 
a clause consisting of several words. Let us grant the utmost 
weight to Volkmar’s argument founded on the reading of the 
Recognitions, still we cannot get rid of the reference to 
“water”; and this one word, if it really stood alone, would 
be sufficient to prove that Justin and the Clementines do not 
give us an exact reproduction of the same original text, but 
that one or other, if not both, has quoted loosely. The 


1 In the Fragment. 2 ἐὰν μή τις ἀναγεννηθῇ. 3 De Incarn., l.c. 
4 “ Renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu,” De Bapt.,13. ὅ xiv. 


PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 93 


allusion to water brings the Clementines into connection with 
the fifth verse in John, and suggests the thought that the 
ἀναγεννηθῆτε does not represent γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, but is as 
arbitrary as the Vulgate’s “renatus fuerit.” 

3. The change from the third to the second person makes 
no difference in the meaning. As Chrysostom says,’ Christ’s 
words are equivalent to ἐὰν σὺ μὴ γεννηθῆς, etc., but are put in 
the indefinite form in order to make the discourse less offensive. 
But if Justin did not wish to make his discourse ἀνεπαχ- 
θέστερον, and intended only to give the meaning without 
studying verbal accuracy, it is quite credible that he might 
alter the words in this way, giving the force of the indefinite 
τις by using the plural,? and especially as the fourth evangelist 
had himself led the way. In verse 7 we read, “Marvel not 
that I said unto thee, δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν, a quotation 
at least as inexact as Justin’s, and involving, though in a 
different form, a similar change of person. Here, however, we 
have the one important point in which Justin and the 
Clementines completely agree, in opposition to all the other 
forms in which, so far as I know, the passage is cited. There 
is, however, a curious parallel in Clemens Alexandrinus?: 
ἣν yap μὴ αὖθις ὡς τὰ παιδία γενήσεσθε, καὶ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, ὡς 
φησὶν ἡ γραφή, τὸν ὄντως ὄντα Llatépa οὐ μὴ ἀπολάβητε, οὐδ᾽ 
οὐ μὴ εἰσελεύσησθέ ποτε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. 
Clement is quite capable of quoting from extra-canonical 
sources; but as no other work has been referred to, ἡ γραφή 


must be understood here in its technical sense of “Scripture.” 


It seems probable that Clement purposely mixes up the 


1 Hom. in Johan., 24. 

2 How easily ae a change might be made, when Δ ΩΣ accuracy was 
not studied, is instructively shown in Theophylact’s paraphrase: ἐγὼ δὲ 
λέγω cot, ὅτι καὶ σὺ καὶ ἄλλος ὁστισοῦν, ἐὰν μὴ ἄνωθεν Kal ἐκ θεοῦ γεννηθέντες Thy 
αξίαν δόξαν περὶ ἐμοῦ λάβοιτε, ἔξω τῆς βασιλείας éore.—Com. on John. 

3 Cohort. ad Grec., ὃ 9. 


94 JUSTIN MARTYR 


sentiments of Matthew xviii. 3 and John iii. 3, flinging in a 
little explanation of his own by the way. If so, we have an 
exact parallel to the change made by Justin and the 
Clementines. It will hardly be maintained that Clement too 
is quoting from the same unknown Gospel, for his other 
words do not bear out such a supposition. 

4. The substitution of “ shall not” for “cannot” is another 
change which leaves the meaning untouched. It is found not © 
only in the Clementines, but in Irenzus, Tertullian, the 
Docetist in Hippolytus,? the Apostolical Constitutions? and 
pseudo-Athanasius.* 

5. The change of θεοῦ into οὐρανῶν is not even without 
manuscript authority, for it is the reading of & in verse 5. 
It is also found in all the places referred to under the last 
head, except the second passage in Tertullian. Chrysostom 
has οὐρανῶν three times, though the verse is given correctly as 
the heading to his Homily, and his recollection of it must have 
been perfectly fresh. It occurs also in the anonymous tract, 
De Rebaptismate® There is no Johannine usage to determine 
this point, for the expression occurs in the writings ascribed 
to John only in the passage before us. I think, however, that 
Tischendorf is critically wrong in admitting οὐρανῶν into the 
text of his last edition. The change in every instance, 
combined as it is so frequently with the alteration of “he 
cannot” into “he shall not,’ probably indicates a pre- 
ponderating reminiscence of Matthew in the writer’s mind. 
In all the later authors it is clear that Matthew influenced the 
recollection only of this particular phrase, and that the 
intention was to quote from John. If we ask which passage 
in Matthew exercised this unconscious influence, we may as 


1 De Bapt., 13; De Anima, 39. 2 Rela, Vii, EG 
3 vi, 15. 4 Quest. ad Ant., τοι. 
5 Hom. in Johan., 25. 6 Routh, Rel. Sac., v. p. 297. 


PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 95 


reasonably say v. 20 as xvill. 3. Justin nowhere quotes 
the latter verse, but he cites the former verbatim, with only a 
transposition of ὑμῶν. 

It appears, then, that Justin’s variations from the Johannine 
text, if considered singly, are open to a simple explanation ; 
and most of them have ample support in the quotations of 
later writers. But is it not most unlikely that we should 
meet with all these changes in combination, and still more so 
that we should find them repeated in another independent 
writer? In order to judge of this, we may observe that 
six of the authors referred to above have three of these 
changes in combination, while one Greek writer, Irenzeus, 
and one Latin, Tertullian, have four.2 Now, the Clementine 
Homilies have only four of Justin’s variations, and of these 
the value of one is seriously modified by the insertion of words 
which are not in Justin. In view, then, of all the above 
facts, I am unable to see any proof that there is more than a 
coincidence in the partial agreement between Justin and the 
Clementines. 

Before leaving this part of our subject, I may mention a 

1 Dral., 105. 

2 These quotations in full are the following: Ireneus, ἐὰν μή τις 
ἀναγεννηθῇ δι’ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, ov μὴ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν 
οὐρανῶν (Fragment xxxv. in Stieren’s 64.) ; Tertullian, “Nisi quis renatus 
fuerit ex aqua et spiritu, non intrabit in regnum celorum” (De Bapt., 13). 
The great similarity between these extracts and the quotation in the 
Recognitions will be noticed by the reader. It should also be observed 
that the agreement between Irenzeus and Tertullian, which is almost 
perfect, is far greater than that between Justin and the Clementines ; and 
therefore a precise parallel to the argument which is thought so conclusive 
in the case of Justin might be used with greater effect in the case of these 
two noted defenders of the canon. No doubt the “water and spirit” 
bring in a Johannine element which is not in Justin ; but the Clementines, 
anxious to prove that baptism is indispensable, have the “water”; and 
the omission in Justin may be due to the fact that for the moment he is 


insisting on the necessity, not of baptism but of regeneration. Tertullian 
also omits the “spirit” in his quotation in c. 12. 


96 JUSTIN MARTYR 
professed quotation of the passage under discussion which ; 
illustrates the laxity of ancient writers in reproducing the ) 
words of an author to whom they appealed.: Tertullian cites — 
this “ pronuntiatio domini,” “ Nisi natus ex aqua quis erit, non — 
habet vitam.” } 

In order to see how the evidence stands upon the other side, | 
we must examine Justin’s context, and consider what ideas his 
quotation contains, and with what it is associated, and to what 
extent these are agreeable to the thoughts in John iii. and in 
Matt. xviii. We may thus be enabled to determine how far — 
Hilgenfeld’s representation is really correct. 

1. We have, first, the idea of birth as applied to spiritual 
change. This idea occurs nowhere in the Synopties; the word ~ 
γεννᾷν in this sense being, in the New Testament, peculiar to — 
John2 The compound ἀναγεννᾷν is found only in 1 Peter? — 
Thus the central thought of the passage is one pre-eminently ~ 
and characteristically Johannine, and, so far as I .know, μοῦ 


found elsewhere in evangelical literature, apocryphal or 
canonical. Certainly it is not in Matthew xviii. ᾿ 

2. There is, in the second place, the idea that this birth is ἃ 
re-birth, one in addition to the physical birth. No such idea 
is implied in Matthew; but it is clearly implied, and, according © 


to some interpreters, clearly expressed in John, though John, ~ 
in my opinion, expresses more than this. Ἷ 

3. There is, thirdly, the idea that without this re-generation 
men shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. The statement — 
that without the fulfilment of some condition men shall not 
enter the kingdom of heaven is equally explicit in both ἵ 
Gospels, and therefore does not contain any characteristic idea. ᾿ 

4. These thoughts are expressly connected with the rite of ' 


1 De Bapt., 12. 
2 See i. 13, ili. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8; 1 John ii. 29, iii. 9, iv. 7, v. 1, 4, 18. 
ain My . 


PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 97 


baptism. So they are in John; but of such a connection there 
is not a trace in Matthew. 

5. They are immediately associated with the statement that 
“it is impossible for those who are once born to enter into the 
wombs of those who brought them forth.” This same con- 
nection of ideas (which will presently be examined more fully) 
occurs in John, but not in Matthew. 

6. A reason for all this is appended, which, Justin says, “ we 


_ learned from the apostles.” The reason, which is obviously 


given in Justin’s own words, amounts to this: that we had a 
physical birth, according to which we are the children of 
necessity and ignorance, and we require the regeneration that 
we may be children of preference and knowledge. Of this 
there is not a vestige in Matthew; but John also gives a 
reason, and though the words bear no resemblance to Justin’s, 
yet these latter might be an interpretation of the statement, 
“that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is 
born of the spirit is spirit.” The idea of necessity comes in 
plainly enough in the ampossibility of entering the kingdom 
of God without a spiritual birth; and the idea of preference, 
in the words, “the spirit blows where it listeth (ὅπου θέλει) 

. 80 is every one who is born of the spirit.” The 


ignorance also of Nicodemus is contrasted with the know- 


ὩΣ ΟΣ 
υ > = ‘ 


ledge of Christ. Perhaps we may add that the mention of 
φωτισμός as the name of baptism falls in with the reference 
to φῶς in the following verses in John.1 
We may add, as not wholly unimportant in this connection, 
that the passage in John is traditionally used of baptismal 
regeneration,” whereas, according to Clemens Alexandrinus, 
1 Compare Theophylact’s Commentary on the passage: 4 yap διὰ τοῦ 


βαπτίσματος γέννησις, φωτισμὸν ἐμποιοῦσα TH ψυχῇ, K.T.A. 
2 As Theodorus of Mopsuestia says: τὸν τρόπον ἐξηγήσατο τῆς διὰ τοῦ 


βαπτίσματος ἀναγεννήσεως. See the fragments of his Commentary collected 
δι 
| . 


by Fritzsche, p. 25. 
7 


98 JUSTIN MARTYR Ἵ 


that in Matthew does not refer to regeneration at all, but only 
commends to our imitation the simplicity of childhood.* 

From the above survey we may judge for ourselves whether 
Justin is “incomparably more closely related” to Matthew 
than to John. He agrees exactly with Matthew in the one 
very ordinary thought which Matthew and John have in 
common, and there the resemblance ends. Im all that is 
really characteristic of the passage in Justin he agrees 
substantially, though not in words, with John. 

We must now notice more particularly Justin’s added 
statement, that “it is impossible for those who are once born 
to enter into the wombs of those who brought them forth.” 
This statement does not agree verbally with the question of 
Nicodemus; but if we allow for a very natural use of 
synonyms, it corresponds with it so remarkably that we 
cannot believe the resemblance to be accidental.? Hilgenfeld’s 
notion? that Justin and John have here quite independently 
hit upon the same thought, and expressed it so nearly in the 
same way, surely violates all probability. It seems to me 
most unlikely that Justin should, from his own reflection, 
make the remark in question, unless the thought were sug- 
gested to him by the context of the passage which he had 
just quoted. Hilgenfeld thinks that in writing to a heathen, 
to whom the idea of regeneration was unfamiliar, he would — 
naturally subjoin a short explanation; just as elsewhere* he — 
explains the meaning of the word yeéwa. But the word 
γεέννα, not being Greek, required an interpretation. The 
remark in the passage before us explains nothing. It is, as — 
Justin himself says, φανερὸν πᾶσι; and the real explanation is | 


2 The change from τὴν κοιλίαν to τὰς μήτρας is not to be wondered at ; 
and this, being adepted, carries with it, for the sake sh the 
substitution of an equivalent for τῆς μητρός. ' 

3 Die Ev. Just., p. 216. 4 a i. 6. 19. Ϊ 


1 See the Pedagogus, lib. i. 6. 5, p. 104, Potter. | 
ἶ 
3 


PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 99 


given farther on. In its present position it is simply childish, 
and I cannot suppose that it would occur to any sensible 
writer as a real elucidation of his thought; but it might very 
naturally be written down if it arose in the mind from a 
familiar association of ideas. Add to this the great im- 
probability that if Justin had wished to irradiate the stupid 
mind of Antoninus Pius, he would not only have made such a 
bungling explanation, but have expressed it in words so 
curiously like those of John, and I think we must agree with 
Zeller’ that Hilgenfeld’s notion is untenable. Zeller, it is 
true, rests his argument chiefly on Justin’s appeal to the 
apostles, which is made a little farther on; for this, he thinks, 
proves that Justin had in view a definite writing. I cannot 
see, however, that the appeal to the apostles necessarily covers 
this particular reflection; but the above more general con- 
siderations seem to me quite sufficient to establish the 
existence of a connection, direct or indirect, between Justin 
and John. If we admit this, then there are, as Zeller points 
out, three ways of explaining the connection: Justin may 
have borrowed from John; John may have borrowed from 
Justin; both may have borrowed from an earlier written 
source, probably a writing of the nature of a Gospel. 
Volkmar,? while admitting that the possibility of an earlier 
Gospel containing this peculiar order of thought is incontest- 
able, is nevertheless fully sensible of the objection that its 
existence is quite problematical; indeed, he “might say, 
ghost-like.” The fact is that, except the supposed indication 
in Justin, we have not the shadow of a proof that any 
Gospel but the Fourth ever existed which contained this 
peculiar vein of thought. It may be very convenient 
to imagine the existence of some accommodating Gospel 


1 See an article in the Theol. Jahrb., 1855, pp. 138-140. 
2 Justin, pp. 44-46. 


100 JUSTIN MARTYR 


whenever we are in a difficulty, but I find it hard to 
believe that this is true. criticism; and it does not 
seem likely that a Gospel of this peculiar character, when 
once it had been accepted in the Church as an apostolic work, 
should have been allowed to perish.1 Volkmar, therefore, 
boldly adopts the idea that the author of the Fourth Gospel 


1 Baur (Krit. Unters. iiber die kan. Ev., Ὁ. 352) and others believe that 
the Gospel in question was that according to the Hebrews; and as there 
really was such a Gospel, this conjecture may be thought to relieve the 
spectral character of the hypothetical authority. It would carry us too far 
to examine fully the question whether Justin used this Gospel, but the 
following is a summary of the evidence. We possess thirty-three quotations 
from, or references to, events related in the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews. (See these collected in Mr E. B. Nicholson’s The Gospel according 
to the Hebrews, 1879, and in Hilgenfeld’s Novum Testamentum extra Canonem 
receptum, 1884, fasc. iv.) Justin has somewhere about 170 citations from 
or references to the Gospels. With an apparent exception to be noted 
presently, not one of the quotations from the lost Gospel is found among 
these 170. But this isnot all. While the greater number deal with matters 
not referred to in Justin, nine admit of comparison; and in these nine 
instances not only does Justin omit everything that is characteristic of the 
Hebrew Gospel, but in some points he distinctly differs from it, and agrees 
with the canonical Gospels. There is anapparent exception. Justin quotes 
the voice from heaven at the baptism in this form, “Thou art my Son ; 
this day have I begotten thee.” “This day have I begotten thee” is also 
in the Ebionite Gospel ; but there it is awkwardly appended as a second 
saying, thus: “‘Thou art my beloved Son ; in thee was I well pleased’ ; 
and again, ‘This day have I begotten thee’” ; so that the passage is quite 
different from Justin’s, and has the appearance of being a later patchwork. 
Justin’s form of quotation is still the reading of the Codex Beze in Luke, 
and, according to Augustine, was found in good MSS., though it was said 
not to be in the older ones. (See Tischend., an loco.) One other passage is 
appealed to, Justin says that when Jesus went down wpon the water, a fire 
was kindled in the Jordan—zip ἀνήφθη ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ. The Ebionite 
Gospel relates that when Jesus came up from the water, immediately a great 
light shone round the place—evébs περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς wéya. This 
fact is, I believe, the main proof that Justin used the Gospel according to 
the Hebrews, and that we may therefore have recourse to it whenever he 
differs verbally from the existing Gospels. Considering that the events 
recorded are not the same, that they are said to have happened at different 
times, and that the two quotations do not agree with one another in a 
single word, this argument cannot be considered very convincing even by 


PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION IOI 


borrowed immediately from Justin.1 I suppose the possibility 
of this, as of the existence of the ghost-like Gospel, is incon- 
testable, but this conclusion narrows our inquiry to the 
question, Which is the more original, Justin or John? Now 
this is, to a great extent,a matter of subjective judgment; 
and very likely the critics might be as much astonished at 
me aslIamatthem. But it does seem to me surprising that 
anyone, in comparing the passages in Justin and John, should 
doubt for one moment that the dependence is on the side of 
the former. John has all the impress of original genius, and 
gives his thoughts with the terse suggestiveness of one who 
for the first time commits them to writing. Justin never 
rises above the level of a prosy interpreter of other people’s 
ideas. The question of Nicodemus, whether we understand 
it as pathetic, or scornful, or simply perplexed, is at least 
charged with meaning; whereas, the only thought the corre- 
sponding words in Justin suggest is, how any man could 
be so foolish as to put them on paper. Yet it is precisely 
in this question that Zeller thinks we have conclusive proof 


those who do not require perfect verbal accuracy in order to identify a 
quotation. But, further, the author of the anonymous Liber de Rebaptismate 
says that this event was related in an heretical work entitled Pauli 
Predicatio, and that it was not found in any Gospel: “Item cum 
baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum ; quod in evangelio nullo est 
scriptum ” (Routh, Rel. Sac., v. pp. 325, 326). Of course the latter statement 
may refer only to the canonical Gospels. We must remark, however, that 
the event is related in two Old Latin manuscripts, at the end of Matthew 
111. 15: “lumen ingens [v. 7. magnum] circumfulsit [v. 7. fulgebat] de aqua” 
(see Tischendorf). This suggests at least the possibility that Justin may 
have had some apocryphal statements in his codex of the Gospels. 

We may pethaps add that if the passage about regeneration had been in 
this Gospel, there is some little probability that Jerome would have 
mentioned a fact which must have forcibly struck him. 

From the above evidence the reader may judge for himself whether an 
appeal to the Gospel according to the Hebrews greatly relieves the 
difficulty mentioned in the text. 

Ptr. AO. 


102 * JUSTIN MARTYR 


that John’s account is derived, not indeed from Justin, but 
from some earlier source. He says that the objection 
of Nicodemus applies only to being born again, and not 
at all to being born from above; and therefore it must 
originally have belonged to a connection in which birth from 
above had not yet taken the place of re-birth. To this three 
different replies might be made. In the first place, the 
evangelist himself may have used the word ἄνωθεν in the sense 
of ἐξ ἀρχῆς, “all over again,” a sense which would suggest the 
entering a second time into the mother’s womb much more 
forcibly than the simple “again.” Or, secondly, not taking 
into account that the conversation must have been carried on 
in another language, he may have meant that Christ used it 
in one sense and that Nicodemus understood it in the other. 
But, thirdly, I think an examination of the passage itself 
suggests a totally different meaning from that which is 
generally accepted. Nicodemus does not ask, “How can a 
man be born again?” but, “ How can a man be born when he 
is an old man?”? The introduction of the word γέρων is 
surely meant to add something to the sense, and is not 
merely equivalent either to “a second time” or to “adult.” 
Nicodemus’s first difficulty is not that a man cannot be liter- 
ally born over again, but that old age stands in the way of 
such spiritual birth as Jesus had just mentioned. Feeling the 
fascination of Christ, and a want within, he speaks sadly; he 
is too old to be born from above and to thrill with the pulses 

1 This is Cyril’s view: Χριστὸς τὴν διὰ πνεύματος ἀναγέννησιν ἄνωθεν 
ἀπεκάλει. . . Τὸ δὲ ἄνωθεν ὃ Νικόδημος οὐχ οὔτως ἐκλαβὼν τὴν εἰσαῦθις ἐσομένην 
ὑποτόπησε γέννησιν, ὡς ἐπὶ σωμάτων, σημαίνεσθαι. Com. in Joan., lib. ii. ; 
Migne, vol. vi. 244. So also Theophylact says that Christ used the word 
as equivalent to ἐκ θεοῦ, but that Nicodemus understood it in the sense of 
ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἐκ δευτέρου. Com. in loc. Some support is lent to this view by 
the fact that John here only uses the phrase in question in preference to 


ἐκ θεοῦ, which occurs in i. 13, and nine times in the First Epistle. 
2 γέρων dy. 


PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 103 


of a higher life. This would be as hard as to enter again 
his mother’s womb and be born. So understood, the passage 
is full of meaning and pathos. Meyer! rejects this interpre- 
tation, and considers the answer of Nicodemus a foolish one, 
arising simply from his perplexity; but I see no reason for 
adopting his view, and supposing that the writer meant to 
ascribe such hopeless silliness to “the teacher of Israel.” 
Jesus pays no attention to the question of Nicodemus under- 
stood in its literal sense, but he does address himself to the 
spiritual difficulty. The flesh, it was true, was subject to the 
law of necessity ; and he who had only a fleshly lineage, and 
had experienced no higher birth, could not enter the kingdom 
of God. But that which was born of the spirit was spirit; 
and here was no law of necessity or of old age, for the spirit, 
like the wind, breathed where it would, and a man might 
hear the higher voice, he could not tell whence or whither. 
Nicodemus still feels that it cannot be, and asks how it is 
possible ; and this leads to the exposition of God’s love in 
sending his Son, evidently as the great instrument for effecting 
the birth from above. 

I am, therefore, unable to see any valid reason why Justin’s 
quotation may: not have been taken from the Fourth Gospel; 
and if either borrowed from the other, I could not hesitate 
for a moment in pronouncing Justin the dependent author. 

In regard to the Clementine Homilies, the word ὕδατι, 
representing ἐξ ὕδατος, brings in another feature of John; and 
the epithet ζῶντι, though it is not applied to the water in 
the conversation with Nicodemus, is quite Johannine. The 
baptismal formula has probably been inserted by the author 
deliberately ; for it is not very unusual in patristic quotations 
to find the author’s comments interlarded with the scriptural 
words. When the view that Justin did not use the Fourth 


1 Com. tn loc. 


104 JUSTIN MARTYR 


Gospel first became a favourite one with critics, it was con- 
fidently maintained, notwithstanding some indications to the 
contrary, that the writer of the Clementines also was 
unacquainted with it. Since then, the second part of the nine- 
teenth book and the whole of the twentieth, which had been 
previously missing, have been found; and in xix. 22 is a 
reference to the healing of the blind man in John ix. which is 
generally admitted to prove conclusively the use of the Gospel. 
A doubt, however, may be raised on two grounds. First, there 
are some alterations of the Johannine text; but these, in the 
part that professes to be quoted, are few and slight, certainly 
no more than we repeatedly find in quotations. The chief 
variation, the use of πηρός for τυφλός, does not oceur within 
the limits of the quotation. The moment that is introduced, 
the writer abandons the word of his own choice, and adopts 
the Johannine τυφλός. The fact that the same word is once 
used by Justin in connection with ἐκ γενετῆς seems to me no 
more extraordinary than that two men should prefer the 
expression “born mute” to “borndumb.” The other difficulty 
is that the writer draws from the event an inference which 
was clearly not in the mind of John. He represents it as an 
instance in which “the power of God” was “healing the 
sins of ignorance.” The argument, however opposed to the 
intention of John, follows easily enough. Suffering is an 
evidence of something wrong somewhere. Now as the blind 
man was not suffering for any sin on the part of himself or 
Lis parents, his affliction must have been due to that ignorant 
and reckless self-indulgence of mankind to which the author 
ascribes premature death and other evils: they came ἐξ 
ayvotas, not ἐκ πονηροῦ εἰργασμένου. It seems to me, then, 
that his inference, however strange, is founded strictly on the 
passage as it stands in John, and I think we are not justitied 
in resorting to a “ ghost-like” Gospel as its source. One other 


PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 105 


point deserves notice: the author refers to this event in a way 
which shows thai he expected his readers to be familiar with 
it. He mentions “the man blind from birth,” as though every 
one would know at once what man was intended. From this 
I should conclude that the narrative was taken from a book 
generally known and accepted in the Church, and not from 
some work which is so obscure that its very existence is 
hypothetical. It appears to me, therefore, to be the most 
reasonable and legitimate conclusion that the author of the 
Clementine Homilies was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel.’ 
But if so, the most natural supposition is that the passage 
about regeneration is dependent on the same source, and the 
weightiest argument against the position that Justin quoted 
from John thereby disappears; and the arguments above 
advanced in defence of that position remain with unimpaired 
force. 
One other argument remains. It is urged by Volkmar? 
that only men who elevate their fleshly wishes above truth 
and history can find it anything but unintelligible that Justin 
should not have made an especial use of John’s Gospel, if he 
“knew it. When critics begin to bully, ordinary mortals are 
apt to suppose that their argument is not of much weight. 
At the risk of being thought very carnal-minded, I would 
suggest in the first place, that if we admit that Justin did use 
the Fourth Gospel, then, though he has quoted little, he has 
‘made a very abundant use of its thought in his doctrine 
οὗ the Logos. This point will be examined further on.’ 
Secondly, it does not seem so incredible to me as it does to 
| Volkmar that Justin did not consider the Fourth Gospel so 
| well suited to his apologetic writings as the Synoptics, and 
may intentionally have kept that higher and more spiritual 


1 Against this view, see Supernatural Religion, ii. pp. 341 844. 
ait fk Ve 


106 JUSTIN MARTYR 


Gospel in reserve. Volkmar thinks it terribly strange, that 
if he knew the Gospel, he could appeal in proof of Christ's 
pre-existence to the adoration of the Magi, and pass over, — 
“before Abraham was, I was.”! This criticism only shows that j 
the critic can misquote as well as Justin, and is unable to — 
understand an argument. The authority of the Fourth — 
Gospel was of course not admitted by Tryphon; and to appeal — 
to a saying of Christ’s in proof of the truth of that very 
saying itself, though apparently not impossible for a modern — 
critic, would have been a mistake into which Justin was not } 
likely to fall. On the other hand, the appeal to the authority — 
of the Magi, whatever we may think of its value, was quite — 
in point, because Tryphon did not dispute the historical fact. — 
If this is the strongest sample of the “innumerable passages ” ΐ 
which Justin might have used, I think the less that is said | 
about them the better. But, lastly, if Justin, did use the 
Fourth Gospel, it is by no means correct to say that this is — 
the only thing he cites from it. At least a few other passages 
naturally point to John, though they might not be sufficient 
to prove that that Gospel was used, especially if the “ghost- — 
like ” Gospel be at hand in every emergency. ἷ 

Let me endeavour to sum up this portion of the argument — 
in a few words. There are two hypotheses by which to — 
account for the quotation in Justin; 1, that a Gospel which — 
in the generation after Justin was, as we know, confidently ; 
believed to have been in existence for the greater part of a — 
century, was really in existence sufficiently early to be used — 
by Justin; and 2, that a Gospel with a precisely similar vein — 
of thought, a Gospel which, in the generation after Justin, had — 
passed out of ecclesiastical use, and the very existence of 3 


which is only inferred from the present quotation, was cited — 
by Justin as an apostolical authority. The latter hypothesis, : 


1 “Khe Abraham war, war ich,” p. 20; see Dzal., 87, 88. 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 107 


being framed for the express purpose, will, of course, explain 
the phenomenon. If the reasoning in this chapter be correct, 
the former hypothesis, framed not for the purpose, but on 
the ground of historical probability, also affords an adequate 
explanation of the facts. Surely, then, it is the part of sound 
criticism to accept an explanation which is founded upon what 
we know, instead of resorting to the boundless field of con- 
gectwre, where the severity of scientific study is in danger of 
being sacrificed to the facile pleasure of piling up shifting 
and unsubstantial hypotheses. 

The solution of the question whether Justin Martyr made 
use of the Fourth Gospel must, in the absence of indisputable 
citations, depend to a large extent on his doctrine of the 
person of Christ. If it could be shown that this was less 


developed than that of the Gospel, we should naturally assign 
it to an earlier stage in the formation of ecclesiastical dogma ; 
but if it appear to be more developed, we shall as naturally 
assign the priority to the teaching of the evangelist. In 

comparing Justin’s with the Johannine doctrine, we have to 
consider their relations in substance and in phraseology. The 
evidences on these points must, to a certain extent, be pre- 
sented concurrently, though they may afterwards be made the 
subject of separate remark. 

First, then, we must observe that Justin uses the word 
λόγος in its special theological sense. Here we may notice 
some curious facts, which, if they do not seem to have any 
immediate bearing upon our question, are useful as showing 
how necessary it is, in judging of a writer’s mode of express- 
ing an opinion, to bear in mind the nature of the works in 

which that opinion is advocated. In the First Apology the 
word λόγος, in the singular or plural, is used altogether 67 
times, It is employed 27 times, including two or three doubt- 
; ful cases, in its peculiar theological acceptation. The other 
ἵ 


ἱ 


108 JUSTIN MARTYR 


senses in which it occurs are: reason, argument, doctrine, 
word, discourse, account, and quasi-theologically as a designa- 
tion of Hermes. Of 28 instances of its use in the short Second © 
Apology, no fewer than 16, again including two or three andl 
certain cases, exhibit the theological meaning, Here its other 


significations are: reason, argument, doctrine, method, word. 


In the Dialogue with Tryphon it is found no less than 235 Ἷ 
times; and yet its theological use is represented by only seven 
instances, of which two are doubtful. It is applied, in a sense 
unknown to the Apologies, 62 times to the Scriptures or 
Scriptural passages. It is most frequently employed simply 

in the meaning of words, passing off into that of utterance or 
declaration, discussion, argument, doctrine, system. In the 
signification of reason, where it most nearly approaches the 
theological use, it occurs only 13 times, against 16 in the ὗ 
Apologies. We thus learn that the term λόγος exhibits its” 
theological colouring about once in 33 times in the Dialogue, 
against nearly once in every two instances of its use in the 
Apologies; or if we add the signification reason, the propor- 
tion is about I in 12 in the Dialogue against considerably. 
more than 1 in 2 in the Apologies. On the other hand, in the q 
Dialogue it is employed in more than a quarter of the in- 
stances in a meaning of which the Apologies furnish no 
example. The reason is sufficiently obvious. In addressing 
the cultured emperor of the Romans, Justin naturally resorted 
to a more philosophical phraseology, while in arguing with 
Jews he felt this to be less appropriate, and in citing the. 
Seriptures adopted a description which expressed the rever-_ ἡ 
ence entertained towards them no less by his opponents than 
by himself. We may learn from these facts that Justin, 
whether consciously or unconsciously, largely modifies his. 
language according to the object which he has in view and 
the persons whom he seeks to influence, and that therefore 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST τοῦ 


we must not attach any importance to the silence of apolo- 
getic writings upon points which would be more fitly discussed’ 
in works dealing with the internal controversies of Christians 
themselves,’ 

_ We must now proceed to unfold the contents of Justin’s 
doctrine, and compare it with the Johannine. In doing so we 
shall follow the order in which the several topics appear most 
logically to succeed one another. 

According to the Fourth Gospel, “The Logos was God,” θεὸς 
ἣν ὁ Noyos.2 Now this statement, though apparently so clear, 
contains an ambiguity. Did the writer use θεός in its highest 

acceptation, and mean to assert that the Logos, which in one 
sense was an eternal attribute of God, was in another aspect 
God himself, regarded in his relation to the universe and to 
man? Or did he intend to affirm the distinct personality of 
the Logos, and in doing so to ascribe to him a divine nature ? 
Both these views may be, and have been, maintained. If the 
‘second be accepted as correct, then the question arises, What 
is implied by θεός: Is it merely a figurative expression, de- 
‘signed to convey the idea of exalted dignity, as in the passage 
quoted by the author himself, “I said ye are Gods”?? Or does 
it denote a special divine nature, such as could not be predi- 
cated of angels or of men? In Justin’s doctrine there is none 
of this ambiguity. On each point he is perfectly explicit; 
and the whole subject seems to have passed through the 
furnace of controversy, and to have worked itself out into 
clear and formulated expression. Before citing the evidence 
in support of this statement, we must observe that we may 
fairly adduce passages in which the special term λόγος is not 
adopted, because Justin identifies the Logos with the Son of 


1 The above facts are gathered from a table which I have prepared of 
all the passages in Justin in which the word λόγος occurs. 
fee Sx) at 


110 JUSTIN MARTYR 
God and with Christ: τοῦ λόγου . . . . ὅς ἐστι Χριστός, and 
Χριστὸς .. . υἱὸς τῷ θεῷ . . . λόγος αὐτοῦ. 


Justin applies the word θεός to the Logos or Christ once in 
the Apologies, and a great number of times (I have counted 
upwards of thirty-four) in the Dialogue. The term, not very 
distinctive in its use by heathens, became important in con- 


} 
ἱ 
; 


troversy with Jews. The following may serve as examples of 


the mode in which it is introduced: “For Christ has been 
preached as king and priest, and God and Lord, and angel 
and man... . as I demonstrate from all the Scriptures.” ὃ 
“T am now going to prove that the revelation in the time 
of Jesus, who was a priest among your people in Babylon, 
was a prediction of the things that were to be done by our 


priest and God and Christ, the Son of the Father of the 


universe.”* Having alluded to the history of Jacob, Justin 
concludes, Θεὸς καλεῖται καὶ θεός ἐστι καὶ ἔσται. 

How it is that the Logos comes to be θεός is very clearly 
explained. His divine nature depends on the peculiarity of 
his Sonship; “who, as being Logos and first-born of God, is 
also God.”® “God, in consequence of his being [ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι] 
_a child first-born of all created things.’’ From these passages 
“it is evident that θεός is applied to Christ, not as a title of 
dignity, but as a description of his nature. This inference is 
confirmed by the different way in which Justin uses the term 


ἄγγελος in reference to Christ. He borrows this designation 


from certain passages in the Old Testament, in which he iden- 
tifies “the angel of the Lord” with the Logos; but he uses it 


with an explanation, and always as a title, never as indicating 


the possession of an angelic nature. Thus we find in the First © 


1 Avpol., 11. 6. το. 2 Agol,, 1. 6.25. 3 Dual., δ. 34. 
4 Dral., δ: 115. 5 Duial., ὃς 58. 

6 Ὃς λόγος καὶ πρωτότοκος dy τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ θεὸς ὑπάρχει. Apol., i. c. 63. 

7 Dual, Ὁ. 125. 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST τι: 


Apology,! ἄγγελος δὲ καλεῖται... . αὐτὸς yap ἀπαγγέλλει ὅσα 
δεῖ γνωσθῆναι, and in the Dialogue,” ὃς καὶ ἄγγελος καλεῖται, διὰ 
τὸ ἀγγέλλειν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, κιτιλ. In speaking of the three 
supernatural visitors to Abraham, he draws a clear distinction 
between the one whom he identifies with the Logos and the 
other two. First of all Tryphon admits, under pressure of 
Justin’s argument, that he had been mistaken in supposing 
that all three were angels. Justin, without remarking upon 
this admission, proceeds to emphasize his belief, ὅτι εἷς τῶν 
τριῶν ἐκείνων καὶ ὁ θεός ἐστι καὶ ἄγγελος καλεῖται, and says that 
he appeared in the form of a man, like the two angels who 
came with him. Farther on the objection is raised that these 
visitors ate what was set before them. In his reply, Justin 
makes use of these words: “If we heard that the three were 
said to have eaten, and not only the two who were really 
angels” (οἵτινες ἄγγελοι To ὄντι ἦσαν). Elsewhere he marks 
the difference between the angelic title and the divine nature 
of the Logos thus: ἄγγελος καλούμενος καὶ θεὸς ὑπάρχων It 
is, therefore, abundantly proved that the Logos is regarded as 
a super-angelic, and, in the strictest sense, a divine being. 
Justin is no less explicit in insisting on his distinction from 
the Father, and his separate personality. One of the points 
(as stated by Tryphon) which he undertakes to prove is, that 
“there is another God besides the Creator of the universe.” 6 
This proposition is more fully stated farther on: “There is a 
different [érepos] God from the God who made all things, in 
number, I mean, but not in sentiment” [ἀριθμῷ λέγω ἀλλ᾽ ov 
γνώμῃ] But more important is the fact that he expressly 
controverts the opinion of those who maintained that the Logos 


2.6, 63. # sm, Dial., c. 56. 

* Dual, c. 57. 5 Dual., c. 60. 

6 Dial., c. 50: ἄλλος θεός. Elsewhere, ἕτερος θεός, c. 55. See also c. 56. 
7 ¢. 56. See also c. 62, ἀριθμῷ ὄντα ἕτερον. 


112 JUSTIN MARTYR 


was an inseparable power of the Father’s, which the latter put : 
forth, like a ray of the sun, whenever he desired it, and again — 


at his will withdrew into himself. In opposition to this view, 
Justin contends that the Logos does not mark a mere nominal 
distinction, but is numerically something different: οὐχ ὡς τὸ 


~ e , “Ἢ 4 ’ὔ’ , % a ς ἈἉ Ag SS ~ , 
τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς ὀνόματι μόνον ἀριθμεῖται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν — 


τίἐστιῖ; and that the thing begotten is numerically different 
from him who begets: τὸ γεννώμενον τοῦ γεννῶντος ἀριθμῷ 
ἕτερόν ἐστι." 

While assigning this distinct personality and exalted rank 
to the Logos, Justin is careful to insist on his subordination 


to the Father. In the Fourth Gospel, the subordination οὗ 


the Son during his earthly existence is clearly asserted ; but 
that of the pre-existent Logos can only be inferred from the 
use of the preposition διά in i. 3. This proposition may be 
made to appear consistent with the doctrine of the co-equality 
of the Father and the Son; but no ingenuity of mterpretation 
can force this doctrine upon Justin. The purest monotheistic 


doctrine is asserted near the beginning of the Dialogue in 


terms to which a Jew could take no exception: “Neither 


ee 


oa στον 
= ys 


will there ever be another God [ἄλλος θεός], Tryphon, nor was — 


there from eternity (I thus said to him), except Him who 
made and ordered this universe. Nor do we suppose that 


there is one God of ours and another of yours, but [we esteem : 


as God] that very one who led your fathers out of the land 


of Egypt with a mighty hand and a high arm; nor have we 


hoped on some other (for there is not one), but on Him on 
whom you also [hoped], the God of Abraham and Isaac and 
Jacob.”? This statement verbally contradicts passages 


already quoted, in which the existence of “another God” is — 


1 Dual., 6. 128. 5 ¢,\220), 


3 Dial.,c. 11. In Apol., i. c. 13: τοῦ ὄντως θεοῦ may stand in opposition — 


to polytheism. 


Sait ai 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 113 


asserted ; and we can find a reconciliation only in supposing 
that Justin regarded the Father and Creator of the universe 
as the sole fountain of divinity, self-existent and eternal, and 
that in rejecting the notion of “another God” he meant that 
no other could bear this title in the same supreme sense, or 
stand upon the same line of underived and independent being. 
This conclusion is amply confirmed by the most direct assevera- 
tions. Our apologist speaks of the Logos as ranked under - 
the Father, and as serving His will: ὑπηρετοῦντα τῷ τῶν ὅλων 
πατρί, and ὑπὸ τῷ πατρὶ Kal κυρίῳ τεταγμένος Kal ὑπηρετῶν 
τῇ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ3 He says this in reference to Old Testament 
times, and therefore there can be no allusion to the human 
nature of Christ. He contrasts the Father and the Son by 
declaring that there is another God under the Creator, and 
that above the latter there is no other God: ἐστὶ καὶ λέγεται 
θεὸς καὶ κύριος ἕτερος ὑπὸ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων, .. .. ὑπὲρ ὃν 
ἄλλος θεὸς οὐκ ἔστι "Ξ' Again, while insisting that the Logos 
appeared to Abraham and others, he considers it preposterous 
to suppose that the Father could have manifested himself in 
this way. He presses upon Tryphon’s attention the fact that 
the angel who appeared to Moses in the bush called himself 
the God of Abraham; and hence he argues that this angel 
was God. Tryphon objects that there were really two persons, 
and that though an angel appeared, yet it was God himself 
(that is, the supreme God) who conversed with Moses. Justin, 
admitting for the sake of argument that there may have been 
two persons, proceeds: “Even if, as you say, it can be the 
case that there were two, both angel and God, yet no one 
whatsoever, if he have even a little sense, will dare to say 
that the Creator and Father of the universe, having left all 
the things above heaven, has appeared in a little particle of 


1 Dual., c. 58. 2 Dral., ὁ. 126. 
3 Dial., c. 56, p. 180, Otto, 2nd ed. See also p. 184. 


114 JUSTIN MARTYR 


earth.”! It would be difficult to mark more strongly the 
subordination of the Logos as the minister of the Highest. 
But still further, the Son is represented as dependent on the 
Father both for his being and his rank. He derives all his 
exalted appellations, ἔκ τε τοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν τῷ πατρικῷ βουλήματι 
καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει γεγενῆσθαι,2 and he received 
them from the Father [ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἔλαβε], as all who 
were called kings and anointed derived their titles from him- 
self. Justin speaks of him as τὸν κατὰ βουλὴν τὴν ἐκείνου καὶ 
θεὸν ὄντα, υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, Kal ἄγγελον ἐκ TOU ὑπηρετεῖν TH γνώμῃ 
αὐτοῦ, and describes the Father as αἴτιός τε αὐτῷ τοῦ εἶναι καὶ 
δυνατῷ καὶ κυρίῳ καὶ θεῷ But among subordinate beings the 
Logos takes the first place, another point not decided by, 
however it may be inferred from, the Fourth Gospel. Justin’s 
words are unequivocal: ἡ δὲ πρώτη δύναμις μετὰ τὸν πατέρα 
πάντων... ὁ λόγος ἐστίν." 


In place, then, of the simple proposition of the.Gospel that 


“the Logos was God,” we have in Justin a series of elaborate 


and clearly formulated doctrines, supported by argument and 
comment, and accompanied by a conscious rejection of an 
antagonistic view. In this point, accordingly, the Justinian 
doctrine is not only more copious than the Johannine, but 
presents the appearance of a true development, an unfolding 
of the implicit contents of the brief and pregnant statement of 
the Gospel. And if it be said that thus far Justin is indebted 
to Philo, still the incorporation of the Alexandrine theology 
with Christianity must itself have required time, and its more 


1 Dial., c. 60. See also 6. 127. 2 Dial.,c.61. 3% Deal, c. 86, 
4 Dual., 6. 127. 5 Dral., ὁ. 120. 


6 Apol., i. c. 32. Dorner endeavours to reduce the subordination to a 


minimum, but in doing so leaves unnoticed some of the most conclusive 
passages: Entwickelungsgesch. der Lehre von der Person Christi, I. S. 425 sqq., 
2nd ed. Dr Donaldson frankly admits the subordination : Crit. Hist. of 
Christian Literature and Doctrine, 1866, vol. ii. pp. 218 and 229 sqq. 


oa a 
σον ὅν = 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST τις 


abundant admixture in the writings of the Apologist than in 
that of the Evangelist betrays, if not a later date, at least a 
more advanced post on the march of dogmatic formulation. 

We arrive at a very similar result when we examine more 
fully the doctrine that the Logos is the Son of God. Here 
again the Christian faith is sketched in grand but dim out- 
lines in the Gospel, admitting more or less of poetic or ideal 
interpretation; but in Justin it is sharply defined in unmis- 
takable ecclesiastical prose. The Gospel nowhere asserts that 
the Logos is the Son of God. This title is always applied to 
Jesus; but Jesus is never called the Logos, and their identi- 
fication, however certain it may appear to most people, is 
nevertheless the result of interpretation. Then in what sense 
is Jesus the Son of God? Is the relationship spiritual or 
essential, such as others may in their inferior degree enjoy, 
or grounded in the peculiarity of his being? Again the answer 
must be left to the interpreter. Further, did Christ pre-exist ? 
A few intimations may seem to answer this question with 
sufficient distinctness in the affirmative; yet they are not 
such that it is impossible to explain them away. And, lastly, 
if the Logos was the Son of God, nothing whatever is said as 
to the mode and method of this Sonship, and its duration is 
indicated only by the obscure ἐν ἀρχῇ, and perhaps by πρὸ 
ποῦ Tov κόσμον efva.2 On almost all these points Justin’s 
language is full and explicit. 

First of all he expressly asserts that “the Logos of God is 
his Son.”? The Logos, the Son, and Christ, are identified by 
the statement, vids θεοῦ καὶ ἀπόστολος Incovs ὁ Χριστός ἐστι, 


, , ” A δὲ Ψ» 4) , 4 
πρότερον Aoyos wv, ... +. vuvoe... . ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος. 


eae EVER, 5. 

3 Apol., i. ο. 63, ὁ λόγος δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν 6 υἱὸς αὐτοῦ. See also c. 32, 
Apol., ii. c. 6 ; Dial., c. 48, 100, and many other passages. 

4 Apol., i. c.63. See also c. 23. 


116 JUSTIN MARTYR 


The Sonship of Christ or of the Logos was peculiar in its 
kind. Justin recognizes the possibility, and indeed admits the 
existence, of two views on the subject. “Jesus,” he says, 
“being called a Son of God, if even he be only a man in the 
common way [κοινῶς μόνον ἄνθρωπος], is on account of his wis- 
dom worthy to be called a son of God. . . . But if we say that 
in a peculiar way [ἰδίως], contrary to the common birth, he was 
sprung from God as the Logos of God,” ete He states else- 
where that some Christians believed Christ to be of purely 
human birth [ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον), but that he did 
not agree with them.? He refers, in the former of these pas- 
sages, not to the pre-mundane generation of the Logos, but to 
his miraculous birth into the world; but the rejection of the 
idea that Christ was a mere man is a necessary preparation for 
his own view of the divine Sonship. In unfolding this view 
he maintains that Christ, “ being God, pre-existed [προὐὔὐπῆρχεν] 
as Son of the Creator of the universe.”* His Sonship was of 
a special kind, and limited to himself alone: Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς 
μόνος ἰδίως υἱὸς τῷ θεῷ γεγέννηται, λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων," and 6 δὲ 
υἱὸς ἐκείνου, ὃ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός, ὁ λόγος 5 The peculi- 
arity of his Sonship depends on the manner of his generation. 
Here it is curious to observe that Justin, though of course he 
does not use all the language of a later controversy, is clearly 
homoousian in his view. He maintains that “this power has 
been generated from the Father by his power and will, but 
not by way of amputation, as though the substance of the — 
Father [τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας] were detached.” He uses, to 
illustrate his meaning, the example of fire, which, without 
diminution to itself, kindles another fire, and also our produc- 

1 Apol., 1. ¢. 22. 2 Dial., c. 48. 

5 Dial.,-c. 48. So earlier in the c., mpotmdpxew θεὸν ὄντα, said by 


Tryphon ; and again, θεὸν αὐτὸν προὐπάρχοντα λέγεις, said by Tryphon, 
6: 87. 


4 Apol., i. c. 23. 5 Apol., il. c. 6. 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 117 


tion of speech [λόγος], which leaves unimpaired the reason 
[λόγος] within us Had he believed that the Logos was 
created out of nothing, or out of any pre-existent material dif- 
ferent from God, he could not have used these comparisons, 
nor need he have sought to prove that his opinion did not 
imply any division or diminution in the substance of the 
Father. He must have held, therefore, that the Logos was not 
created, like the world, but generated out of the divine sub- 
stance, or in the Nicene phraseology, γεννηθέντα... ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας 
τοῦ πατρός. Agreeably to this view we are told, 6 θεὸς γεγέννηκε 
δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν, and the Son is called μονογενὴς 
- 1. τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων ... ἰδίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος" Though we do 
not find the express contrast of the Nicene Creed, γεννηθέντα, 
ov ποιηθέντα, Justin’s own language is quite in harmony with 
this distinction. He does not speak of the Son as created, but 
as begotten [γεννηθείς], as an offspring [γέννημα], as projected 
[προβληθέν] from the Father,’ and as having come forth [zpoeA- 
θόντα] from the Father.’ 

Two passages are, however, adduced to show that Justin 
regarded the Logos as a creature. Semisch asserts that he 
once calls him ἐργασία He ought to have added that this 
statement is founded on a conjectural reading. In the place 
alluded to, our apologist has just pointed out that for the due 
comprehension of certain passages in the Old Testament, it is 

1 Dual., c. 128. See also 6. 61. In the above passage we have ἀπὸ 
τοῦ πατρός instead of the Nicene ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, but the difference is 
unimportant, as in c. 61 we have ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ In ὁ. 129 we find 
ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός. 

2. Dial, c. 61. 


3 Dial., c. 105. Again compare the Nicene γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς 
μονογενῆ. 


4 Dual., c. 61. 5 Dral., cc. 62 and 129. Apol., i. c. 21. 
. δ᾽ Dial., c. 62. 7 dhal., δ. 100. 

8 Justin Martyr, his Life, etc. ; translated by J. E. Ryland, 1843, vol. ii. 
Ῥ. 185. 


9 Jhal., c. 114. 


118 JUSTIN MARTYR 


necessary to bear in mind the art [τέχνην] adopted by the 
Holy Spirit, according to which some incidents were typical, 
and sometimes future events were spoken of as though they 
were either present or past. Having quoted a few examples, 
he proceeds: “And again when he says, ‘I will see the 
heavens, works of thy fingers, if I do not hear the workman- 
ship of his words [ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούω τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ THY ἐργασίαν], 
I shall hear unintelligently, as your teachers require, suppos- 
ing that God the Father of the universe and unbegotten has 
hands and feet and fingers and a soul, like a composite 
animal.” 1 quite agree with Dr Donaldson that the above, © 
which is the reading of the manuscripts, furnishes a good 
sense, and that ἐργασία is equivalent to the previous Téxvy.4 
The meaning is, that if we do not attend to the figurative 
character of the words, we shall form a very absurd opinion, 
Otto’s conjecture, τοῦ λόγου, does not appear so suitable to the 
context; for with this change the passage ceases to be an | 
illustration of Justin’s remark. The reading suggested by ! 
Maranus, τὸν λόγον, on which alone the statement of Semisch 
can be founded, seems utterly devoid of meaning; for how 
could it possibly be inferred from the verse in question that 
the Logos was the work of God? The αὐτοῦ, moreover, natu- 
rally refers, not to God, about whom Justin has not been 
speaking, but to τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, a reference which is duly 
preserved by the reading of the manuscripts. The statement, 
therefore, that Justin calls the Logos ἐργασία, is, to say the : 
least, extremely questionable, and cannot fairly be admitted 
in evidence. The other passage to which appeal is made is 
one in which Tryphon speaks of the Jews as worshippers, τοῦ 
θεοῦ τοῦ Kat αὐτὸν τοῦτον (that is, Christ) ποιήσαντος.2 This 
expression Justin allows to pass without remark; and there- 
fore, it is said, he must have considered it unobjectionable, 
1 Hist. of Christian Lit. and Doctrine, ii. pp. 223-4. 2 Dial., c 64, 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 11g 


The idea, however, that Christ was created is not made the 
subject of a distinct proposition, but occurs incidentally, and 
accordingly does not demand a reply. The plea which 
Tryphon urges is, that the Jews, being worshippers of God, 
did not, like the Gentiles, require to acknowledge and worship 
Christ. It is to this plea that Justin addresses himself, and 
it may not have occurred to him to turn aside from his main 
purpose in order to correct a casual expression chosen by the 
Jew with the object of depreciating Jesus. He would natu- 
rally put into the mouth of Tryphon such language as a Jew 
was likely to employ; and this passage may, at the most, 
occasion some little surprise that he has nowhere taken the 
opportunity of formally objecting to the use of a phrase which 
he ascribes to an opponent. This omission, however, in a 
writer so little systematic may be accidental, and certainly 
cannot set aside the conclusion at which we have already 
arrived, founded as it is on his own positive and unambiguous 
assertions.! 

With this exalted view of his nature, it is not surprising 
that, as we have already observed, Justin assigns to the Logos 
the second place in the universe of being. He is the πρῶτον 
γέννημα τοῦ θεοῦ, the πρωτότοκος τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ θεῷ, and 
ἡ πρώτη δύναμις μετὰ τὸν πατέρα πάντων." Agreeably to 
this belief, the Christians, in their religious services, assigned 
to him the second place, ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες ὃ 


1 Ts it not also possible that though Justin never employs the expression 
in his own person, he may have thought that it could be loosely applied 
to the fact of generation as well as to that of creation? The contrast, 
though, I think, evidently in his mind, is not yet clearly formulated. 
Can he have been influenced by Acts ii. 36 ? 

2 Apol., 1. c. 21. 

3 Apol., i. C. 53. Πρωτότοκος is applied to him ten times elsewhere: 
Apol., i. cc. 23, 33, 46, 63; Dral., cc. 84, 85, 100, 116, 125, 138. Once 
'πρωτόγονος is used instead, Apol., i. 58. 

4 Anol., i. ¢.. 32. 5 Apol.,i.c. 13. See also Apol., ii. ὁ. 13. 


120 JUSTIN MARTYR 


Whether the Logos was co-eternal with the Father, Justin 
nowhere expressly says, and very different opinions have been 
held as to the view which he entertained. The controversy 
turns upon the meaning of two passages, one of which is 
certainly open to the charge of obscurity. Before we refer to 
these, it will be advantageous to consider what we can learn 
from expressions used elsewhere. That Justin ascribed a 
beginning to the personal existence of the Logos may be in- 
ferred with some probability. He says that he came forth 
from the Father by the power and will of the latter (δυνάμει 
αὐτοῦ καὶ BovAy); and represents his existence and divinity as 
dependent on the will of God: ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσεὶϊ 
γεγενῆσθαι, and τὸν κατὰ βουλὴν τὴν ἐκείνου καὶ θεὸν ὄντα." 
These expressions can hardly be reconciled with the idea of 
co-eternity. Nevertheless, since Justin nowhere asserts ex- 


pressly, as Tertullian does,* that there was a time when the 


Son did not exist, we may suppose that his thought upon this 
subject had not yet cleared itself into dogmatic distinctness. 
He was anxious rather, in opposition to the simple humani- 
tarian view, to carry back the existence of the Son as far as 
possible, and represent him as the earliest of dependent beings. 
The Logos is, as we have seen, the πρώτη δύναμις, the πρῶτον 
γέννημα. He pre-existed as God before the ages: θεὸν ὄντα πρὸ 
αἰώνων" “God has begotten him as a beginning before all 


created things” [ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων). The Son 
of God existed before the morning star and the moon: θεοῦ, 


υἱόν, ὃς καὶ πρὸ ἑωσφόρου καὶ σελήνης jv.’ He was the “ first- 
born of all creation” [πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως] an expres- 
sion which must be explained by those already quoted. We 


1 Dral., ὁ. 100. 2 Dual., c. 61. 3 Dual., c. 127. 

4 Adv. Hermog., c. 3. 5 Dial., c. 48, quoted by Tryphon from Justin. 
6 Dial., ὃ. 61. See also 100 and 129; and πρὸ πάντων ὄντα, c. 96. 

7 Dial. c. 45. 8 Dial., ec. 85 and 138. Compare 84 and 125. 


ee Sus we. ὦ, 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 121 


learn from these citations that the Logos was regarded as 
having had a distinct personal existence, and as having been 
generated before the creation. 

Bearing in mind the result which we have thus reached, we 
may proceed to the examination of the two more ambiguous 
passages. The first is the following: “But his Son, who 
alone is called Son in the literal sense, 6 λόγος πρὸ τῶν 
ποιημάτων καὶ συνὼν Kal γεννώμενος, OTE THY ἀρχὴν δὶ αὐτοῦ 
πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε, is called [λέγεται] Christ in relation 
to his having been anointed, and God’s having ordered every- 
thing through him.” 1 The second is: τὸ τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς 
προβληθὲν γέννημα πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων συνῆν TH πατρί 
Semisch, who is followed by Otto, says that “in these two 
passages the words and ideas, συνεῖναι and γεννᾶσθαι, form a 
contrast. .... The συνεῖναι is by the clause πρὸ πάντων τῶν 
ποιημάτων placed beyond all time; the γεννᾶσθαι, on the con- 
trary, although it has a share in this clause is, by the addi- 
tional indication of time, ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν δὶ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε, 
placed so nearly contemporary with the creation of the world, 
that it approaches time itself.” Accordingly he thinks that 
συνεῖναι is applied to the Logos as an impersonal attribute of 
God, and that its coming forth as an hypostasis or person, 
described by γεννώμενος, is represented as taking place at the 
epoch of the creation. To this interpretation there are several 
serious objections. The word “ συνών, as Dr Donaldson re- 
marks, “is not the proper word for an attribute, ἐνών or 
προσών being the words used for it; σύνειμι implies ‘ existence 
along with,’ and therefore separate, distinct existence.” Again, 
to make the generation of the Logos contemporaneous with 
the creation, is in complete contradiction of Justin’s view. 
Semisch, being quite aware of this, has to regard the events as 


1 Apol., ii. c. 6. 2 Dual., c. 62. 
3 Justin Martyr, etc., 11. pp. 181 sqq. tl airy τον 


122 JUSTIN MARTYR 


“nearly contemporary”; but the passage either makes them | 
absolutely contemporary, or says nothing whatever on the — 
subject. And lastly, there is nothing in the structure of the © 


words to suggest the contrast on which Semisch dwells. In ' 


the Apology it is impossible to justify the division of the two 


expressions of time between the two participles; and in the - 


Dialogue it seems perfectly clear that it was the γέννημα, 
and not the impersonal attribute, that was with the Father. 
Semisch, however, contends that on any other interpretation 


of the passage in the Apology, γεννώμενος ought to precede — 


συνών. But, we may add, in that case we ought to have the — 


perfect participle instead of the present. The word, as it 
stands, may be regarded as descriptive, not of the generation 
of the Logos once for all, but of his permanent nature; and 
therefore it is not necessary for it to be placed first. The 


subordinate difficulty which its use in this manner entails is — 


certainly not sufficient to outweigh the very grave objections — 


to Semisch’s view which have been already indicated. We 
must therefore seek for some other construction of the pas- 
sage. Dorner wishes to escape the difficulty which it presents 


by substituting ὅτι for ὅτε: But besides the general objection — 


against all needless resort to conjecture, this change would : 


reduce the clause to mere tautology, the same reason for the ; 


name Christ being given in the very next line. Dr Donald- 
son's suggestion that we should connect the clause introduced 


by ὅτε with what follows instead of with what precedes, ᾿ 


appears to me to afford the most reasonable solution of our 
problem. This clause would then no longer seem in contra- 
diction to the previous statement, but would acquaint us with 
the time when the name of Christ was bestowed upon the 


Son. It would thus be brought into its natural relations 


a 


with the context; and instead of appearing like a superfluity © 


ΣΎ Page. 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 123 


flung in without distinct purpose, would make an important 
addition to the sense of the passage. The only objection that 
occurs to me lies in the use of the present λέγεται after the 
aorists ἔκτισε and ἐκόσμησε, but this may perhaps be suffi- 
ciently explained by the permanence of the title, and by the 
want of literary finish in Justin’s style. 

On the whole, then, the evidence before us warrants this 
conclusion: Justin believed that the Logos existed an in- 
definite time before the creation ; but nevertheless, while avoid- 
ing dogmatic precision in his statements, he ascribed a com- 
mencement to his personal being. 

In concluding this survey of the doctrine of the divine Son- 
ship of the Logos, we may notice the title which is applied to 
him in conformity with it: θεὸς θεοῦ vios,? and more fully, θεόν, 
TOU μόνου Kal ἀγεννήτου καὶ ἀῤῥήτου θεοῦ υἱόν.3 

We come now to the work of the Logos previous to his 
incarnation. The Johannine doctrine may be stated as follows: 
The work of creation was effected through the Logos. He was 
in the world, giving light to all men; but the world did not 
know him or receive him. Some, however, did receive him, 
and to them he gave power to become children of God. All 
these points make their appearance in Justin, and the work of 
the Logos in the world is presented with elaborate explanation 
and with amplitude of detail. 

The whole creation was made through the agency of the 
Logos; ὥστε λόγῳ θεοῦ . . . γεγενῆσθαι τὸν πάντα κόσμον," 
where λόγος is most probably used in its special sense; τὸν 


1 It is instructive to compare the more explicit statement of Theophilus 
of Antioch : Ἔχων οὖν ὃ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον ἐνδιάθετον ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις σπλάγ- 
χνοις ἐγέννησεν αὐτὸν. .. -. πρὸ τῶν ὅλων (Ad. Autol., 11. 10) ; τὸν λόγον τὸν. 
ὄντα διὰ παντὸς ἐνδιάθετον ἐν καρδίᾳ θεοῦ... . ὅπότε δὲ ἠθέλησεν 6 θεὸς ποιῆσαι 
ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησεν προφορικόν (ἰδτα., c.22). Here the 
separate existence of the Logos dates from the divine purpose of creation. 
-With his view Justin’s is not inconsistent. 

= Dial., c. 128. 3 Dial., c. 126. 4 Apol., i. Ce 59. 


124 JUSTIN MARTYR 
θεὸν διὰ λόγου Tov κόσμον ποιῆσαι, where the theological 
meaning is fixed by the context; and δἰ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε 
There is here no room for advance upon the view contained in 
the Gospel. 

The work of the Logos in the world is described with ~ 
greater fulness. All races of men partook of him; οὗ πᾶν 
γένος ἀνθρώπων μετέσχε, and he was in every one: ὁ ἐν παντὶ 
ὦν. A seed of the Logos was innate in every race: τὸ ἔμφυτον 
παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα Tov λόγου" But even phil-— 
osophers could attain to only a partial discovery and contem- 
plation of him: κατὰ λόγου μέρος εὑρέσεως καὶ θεωρίας They 
did not know everything of his [πάντα τὰ τοῦ λόγου], but 
saw only what was kindred to themselves: ἀπὸ μέρους τοῦ 
σπερματικοῦ θείου λόγου TO συγγενὲς Opav.2 Some men lived 
with the Logos [of μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες], δια were Christians, 
even though they were supposed by their contemporaries to be 
atheists. Such among the Greeks were Socrates and Hera- 
clitus, and similar men, and among the barbarians Abraham 
and many others. But those who lived without the Logos 
were enemies of Christ’s, and murderers of those who lived 
with him. Accordingly the Christians themselves were men — 
“in whom the seed from God, the Logos, dwells.” #2 We ought 
to observe that the liberal view of Gentile philosophy is not — 
consistently held by Justin; for he elsewhere advocates the 
notion that the philosophers borrowed their “seeds of truth” 
from the Hebrew prophets." | 


1 Apol., i. 6. 64. + Apol., ii. Ὁ Θὲ 3 Apol., 1. Ὁ: 46. 
P 

4 Apol., li. c. 10. 5 Apol., ii. c. 8. See also 13. 

6 Apol., ii, ¢. 10. 7 Ibid. 8 Apol., ii. δ. 13. 


9 Apol., i. Ὁ, 46. 

10 Apol., 1. 6. 32, οἰκεῖ τὸ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ σπέρμα, ὃ λόγος. Compare with 
this 1 John iii. 9, σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, in connection with John v. 38, 
τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν, from which 1 cannot help thinking 
thatJustin’s expression is derived. 

11 Apol., i. c. 44. 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 125 - 


᾿ς The Logos played an important part in the history of the 
Israelites. This subject is only once touched upon in the 
Gospel, in the obscure words, “Abraham rejoiced to see my 
day; and he saw it, and was glad.”!_ The appearance to Abra- 
ham is treated at great length by Justin, and is alluded to 
‘several times. He is also said to have appeared to Jacob; 
to Moses! to Joshua, to the other patriarchs, and to the 
prophets.’ He was the king and lord of Samuel and Aaron 
and Moses and of all the others.® It was he who shut up 
Noah in the ark, and came down to view the tower of Babel.? 
And finally it was he who led the Israelites out of Egypt.!° 

We see, then, that in regard to the work of the pre-existent 
Logos, both the clear doctrine and the obscure intimation of 
the Fourth Gospel are unfolded with greater amplification and 
precision by Justin. The philosopher, who may have been 
versed in the writings of Philo, adds the philosophical 
comment which the Gospel suggests, but does not supply. 

We have now reached the point where the Jewish-Alexan- 
drine and the Christian doctrines of the Logos definitely part 
company, namely, the incarnation. The whole of the Johannine 
doctrine is contained in the few words, “'The Logos became fiesh, 
and tabernacled among us,” ' and we are not told how or when 
he became incarnate, or whether he dwelt in the human body as 
its animating soul, or was in mysterious union with a complete 
man. Here again Justin, though not quite distinct in every 
particular, largely supplements the deficiencies of the Gospel. 

Christ, in contradistinction from the philosophers, who had 
only a portion of the disseminated Logos, was himself the 


whole Logos :—rov παντὸς λόγου, 6 ἐστι Χριστοῦ." The term 


1 viii. τό. 2 Dial. cc. 56,57. 8 Dial, c. 58. 
4 Dual., ce. 59, 60. APO, i,62al. 5 Dial. c, 61. 6 Dual. c. 113. 
7 Bix. i.e. 63: 8 Dial., ¢. 37. ® Dual., ¢. 127. 


> 10 Dial., c. 120. it 3,14, 12 Avol., ii. c. 8. 


126 JUSTIN MARTYR 


Logos does not, however, describe his whole personality. This is , 


completed only by the union of the divine and human natures. 
Christ is θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος" The former of these terms 
has been already considered. That the latter implies a real 


humanity, exposed to the same kind of sufferings as all men have — 
to endure, is unequivocally asserted :--- ἄνθρωπος ὁμοιοπαθὴς 


πάσιν,"---ἀληθῶς γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος ἀντιληπτικὸς παθῶν, "---ἀληθῶς 


παθητὸς ἄνθρωπος. The two natures were united into one — 
person. This is not, indeed, categorically stated by Justin; 


ee awe ee ον 


but it is implied in his whole treatment of the subject, and — 


the following passage, in which the agony in Gethsemane 


is ascribed to the Son of God, evidently in the highest sense — 


of that term, appears conclusive :—this occurred “that we may ~ 


know that the Father has wished his own Son to be truly in-— 


volved even in such sufferings on our account, and that we may ~ 
not say that he, as being the Son of God, did not feel the things © 
that were done and occurred to him.”* This sentence, though — 


primarily intended to assert the reality of Christ's human — 


nature in opposition to the Docets, would entirely lose its — 


force if Justin could have admitted the supposition that the — 


sufferings of the body were felt only by the man, and did ποῦ 


extend themselves to the incarnate Logos. This complete — 


incorporation of the divine Sonship with suffering humanity — 
is well expressed in Justin’s two favourite phrases, ἄνθρωπος. 


γενόμενος (or variations of these words)® and capkoroinGeis.” 


Whether Justin believed that the humanity of Christ included — 
the highest as well as the lowest elements of human nature © 


has been disputed. In one passage he casually describes 


1 Pial., c. 71. 2 Dual., ὁ. 57, quoted by Tryphon from Justin. 
3 Dial., c. 98. 4 Dual., 6. 99. 5 Dial., c. 103. 


6 Apol., i. cc. 5, 23 (twice), 32, 42, 50, 53, 63 (twice); Apol., ii. ὁ. 135 


Dial., cc. 48, 57, 64, 67, 68 (twice), 76, 85, 100, 101, 125 (twice). 


7 Apol., i. cc. 32, 66 (twice); Dzal., cc. 45, 84, 87, 100. Compare τοῦ 


σωματοποιήσασθαι αὐτόν, Dral., c. 70. 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 127 


Christ as consisting of καὶ σῶμα καὶ λόγον καὶ ψυχήν: Accord- 
ing to one interpretation of these words, he here teaches the 
: doctrine which in later times was maintained by Apollinaris, 
: that in the triple division of human nature into σῶμα, ψυχή, 
and νοῦς or πνεῦμα, the place of the last in Christ was supplied 
by the Logos. It is possible, however, that Justin uses ψυχή 
‘in a wider sense as comprehending the whole of the vital and 
mental principle in man, as in speaking of the future life he 
is content with a reference to σῶμα and ψυχή, and as Apol- 
linaris himself allows to the word this larger significance in 
one of the surviving fragments of his writings. We must 
not omit to notice that the Fourth Gospel, though not in any 
doctrinal passage, ascribes both πνεῦμα“ and ψυχή to Christ. 
To this, however, no more dogmatic significance can be attached 
than to Justin’s ascription of spirit [πνεῦμα] to him when he 
says that he gave up the spirit on the cross. On the whole, 
it appears to me most probable, in the absence of any indubit- 
able statements to the contrary, that Justin quietly assumed 
the completeness of Christ’s humanity, but that he did so 
without a conscious rejection of the particular form of doctrine 
which seated the Logos in the place of the human νοῦς. 

On the question how and when the incarnation took place, 
the Fourth Gospel not only, as I have said, maintains an 
absolute silence, but allows the objection of the Jews,—“ Is 
not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we 
know ?”—to pass without correction; and it gives no answer 
to their inquiry, “ How then does he say, I have come down 
out of heaven?”"’ If the writer had any answer except that 
this was a spiritual mystery, credible to those who had tasted 


1 Apol., ii. c. 10. 2 Apol., i. ¢. 8. 
3 Quoted by Gieseler, Kirchengesch., § 83, note 30. 
ΕἸ. ΕἸ 24, ΧΗ]: 21, xix. 30. ae Sn | ἈΝ γι 


6 Dial., c. 105. 7 vi. 42. 


128 JUSTIN MARTYR i | 7 


the bread of life that came down from heaven, but tanned 
hensible to others, his silence is most difficult to explain. Ἶ 
Justin, however, is not so reticent. The incarnation took place — 
by means of the miraculous conception and the birth from ἃ 
virgin. He refers to this subject upwards of thirty times; 
but it will be sufficient for our purpose to notice those © 
passages in which the Logos doctrine and the birth from 
a virgin are brought into the closest connection. This is 
done in the very first allusion to the subject:—“ When we 
say that the Logos, which is the first offspring of God, has 
been begotten without intercourse, namely, Jesus Christ 
our teacher,” ete! Again, “The first power after the Father 
. is the Logos; and in what way he being made flesh 
became man we shall tell in what follows.... He was 
born through a virgin, ... through the power of God.” 
« a Son to the Father of the universe, who being 
Logos and first-born of God is also God. . ... And now in © 
the times of your empire having become man through a virgin - 
according to the counsel of the Father,’ etc* So in the 
Dialogue :—“ Through a virgin’s womb the first-born of all 
created things being made flesh became truly a child.”* “This 
Son of God and first-born of all creation, born through a 
virgin, and become man,” etc.2 “You say that he pre-existed 
as God, and that according to the counsel of God having been 
made flesh he was born as man through the virgin.”® “He 
was only-begotten to the Father of the universe, having sprung 
in a peculiar manner from him as Logos and power, and after- 
wards having become man through the virgin.”’ In one pas- 
sage Justin expresses himself differently, and says that Jesus 
was born “through the power of the Logos [διὰ δυνάμεως Tod 


1 Apol., i. c, 21. 2 Avpol., i. 6. 32. 3 Apol., i. c. 63.. 
4 ς, 84. 5 ¢, 85 ; see also 100. 6 Said by Tryphon, c. 87. 
Te. 10 Ὁ: a 


i 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 129 


λόγου], . . . through a virgin.”! But this simply implies that 
the Logos, as the agent through whom the Father carried on 
his operations, was himself active in the miraculous conception, 
and is therefore not inconsistent with the other statements. 

We have thus compared the doctrines of the Fourth Gospel 
and of Justin step by step, and it seems to me that the state- 
ment of the latter is, beyond all question, in a more developed 
form than that of the Gospel. Not only is every point in the 
Johannine doctrine contained in Justin’s, but almost every 
portion of it is presented with amplifications, its ambiguous 
statements are resolved into the requisite number of definite 
propositions, and questions which it suggests, but does not 
answer, are dogmatically settled. It cannot well be main- 
tained that the Gospel represents in a condensed form the 
same phase of ecclesiastical thought; for then it would not 
exhibit the ambiguities or raise the unanswered questions to 
which I have alluded, or omit altogether the method of the 
incarnation. In short, while Justin’s doctrine may be used 
as a commentary on the Johannine, the latter cannot be re- 
garded as a summary of the former. Whatever, therefore, 
may be the date of the Gospel, it represents an earlier stage 
of ecclesiastical dogma. ) 

Most striking is the way in which Justin brings the synop- 
tical tradition of the miraculous birth into connection with 
the Logos doctrine. Here the phenomena are precisely what 
we should expect if it was thought necessary to harmonize 
the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptics; and if we arrange the 
three views, miraculous birth without Logos doctrine, Logos 
doctrine without miraculous birth, and Logos doctrine along 
_ with miraculous birth, and remember that the last is the per- 
_ manent ecclesiastical dogma, I do not see how it is possible 
to believe that the middle one, the Johannine, is the latest of 


1 Apol., i. c. 46. 
9 


130 JUSTIN MARTYR 


the three, or that a Gospel containing it was likely either to 
be written or to force its way into universal acceptance as an 
apostolic work at a time when the enduring dogma of the 
Church had been already formulated. All difficulty vanishes 
if we suppose that the beliefs exhibited respectively by the 
Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel existed at first in their de- 
tached form, and then, on account of the authority of the 
writings in which they appeared, were held to be equally 
binding on the faith of Christendom, and were harmonized 
accordingly. 

We may notice here, as illustrating the relation of ecclesias- 
tical writers to the Scriptures, an apparent contradiction 
between Justin and John, which is pointed out by Dr Abbott? 
as an objection to the view here put forward. The former 
says that to the Father of all, as being unbegotten, no name 
(ὄνομα) is given? whereas the latter says that Christ mani- 


fested God’s name to his disciples.2 Here there is indeed a 


verbal contradiction, but surely none in meaning. Are we to 
suppose that Justin was ignorant of, or rejected, also the 
Lord’s prayer? It is obvious that by ὄνομα he means a 
proper name, like Peter or Paul. For he says that “Father 
and God and Creator and Lord and Sovereign are not ὀνόματα 
but προσρήσεις. John also gives no proper name. It is 
clear that by ὄνομα he refers to a word descriptive of the 
essential nature and character of God; and that word is 
πατήρ. Justin’s, which was the common philosophical view, 
was held by later writers, whose knowledge of the Fourth 
Gospel will not be called in question. The martyr Attalus 
declared ὁ θεὸς ὄνομα οὐκ ἔχει ὡς ἄνθρωπος Theophilus of 
Antioch teaches the same lesson when he says τὸ εἶδος τοῦ 


θεοῦ ἄῤῥητον καὶ ἀνέκφραστόν ἔστιν, and almost verbally — 


1 Encycl. Bibl., ii. 1836. 2 Avol., ii. 6. 3 xvi1.'6, 12,20. 
4 In the Letter from Lyons and Vienne, Eusebius, H. £., v. τ. 


ik 
"ἢν 
v1 
" 
δὶ 
᾿ 


x Eusebius. 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 131 


contradicts John i. 18 when he says that God is ἀνεκδιήγητος.ἷ 
Clement of Alexandria gives the philosophical explanation 
when, having pronounced God to be ἀνωνόμαστον, he declares 
of such expressions as Father, or God, or Lord, οὐχ ws ὄνομα 
αὐτοῦ προσφερόμενοι λέγομεν, ὑπὸ δὲ ἀπορίας ὀνόμασι καλοῖς 
προσχρώμεθα, ἵν ἔχῃ ἡ διάνοια, μὴ περὶ ἄλλα πλανωμένη, 
ἐπερείδεσθαι τούτοις." Lactantius teaches the same doctrine, 
quoting Trismegistus in its support. The simple fact is that 
no acceptance of revelation could stop the onward flow of 
philosophical speculation, and writers who undoubtedly 
accepted the divine authority of the Fourth Gospel surround 


its thoughts with a vast mass of philosophical language and 


doctrine, which is entirely foreign to the Gospel itself. A 
useful example is furnished by Theophilus of Antioch. 
Critics might prove to their entire satisfaction that he could 
not have known the Fourth Gospel, were it not that in a 
single passage he happens to quote the Gospel under the 
name of John, after stating his Logos doctrine in most 
un-Johannine language.‘ 

So far our examination of Justin’s doctrine has not furnished 
immediate evidence that he was acquainted with the Gospel. 
Its value in this direction has been chiefly negative. It has 
removed the objection that Justin’s doctrine belongs to an 
earlier period than the Johannine, and shown that it really 
represents a later phase of development; and to this extent it 
favours the hypothesis that the Gospel is the earlier composition. 


_ There are, however, certain features in Justin’s way of unfold- 


ing his subject which afford some positive evidence,—evidence, 
indeed, of a delicate character, and not placed beyond the reach 


1 Ad Autol., i. 3. 2 Strom. v.12, p. 695. Potter. 
3 Inst. Div.,i.6. The above are referred to in the note in Heinichen’s 


4 Ad Autol., ii. 22. 


\ 


132 - JUSTIN MARTYR 


of doubt, but valuable to the really critical mind, which is con- 
tent patiently to weigh probabilities, and does not impetuously 


thrust aside as worthless every argument which falls short of 


demonstration. To these we must now address ourselves. 

It seems most probable that some evangelical document 
esteemed authoritative by Christians contained a doctrine of 
the Logos which Justin believed to be substantially identical 
with his own. In the absence of express quotation, and with 
our author’s want of strictness and accuracy in the use of 
language, there is room for uncertainty; but the following 
indications point in this direction. 

Justin apparently assumes throughout that he is defending, 
not some new opinions of his own, but the faith of the great 
body of Christian believers. He candidly admits that “some” 
did not entertain the same opinion as himself in regard to the 
divine nature of Christ; but this word “some” implies that 
the majority of Christians were on his side. He adds: “ With 
these I do not agree; nor should I even if most who thought 
as I do [that is, most Christians] should affirm it [Christ’s 
natural human descent], since we have been ordered by Christ 
himself not to believe human doctrines, but those which were 
preached through the blessed prophets and were taught through 
him.”! Here again it is clearly implied that Justin, in his own 
conception, represented the opinion of “ most.” 

Further, it is evident from the last quotation, unless its 
solemn appeal is quite irrelevant, that he supported his doc- 
trine of the supernatural sonship of Jesus by the authority 
of the Master himself; and therefore there must have been 
some evangelical document which put into the mouth of 
Christ some statements in regard to his own divine and pre- 
existent nature. This document can hardly have been one of 
the Synoptics; for the simple title “Son of God” would not, 

1 Dial., c. 48. 


a 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 133 


according to Justin’s own admission,’ have been sufficient to 
establish his conclusion, and we cannot well suppose that this 
title was rejected by the party who maintained the simple 
humanity of Jesus. But discourses similar to some of those 
in the Fourth Gospel would have supplied him with the needed 
element in Christ’s teaching. This casual allusion is of con- 
siderable importance, because Justin nowhere quotes any 
words of Christ’s in support of his position, and from this 
fact it has been inferred that he knew of none to quote. Here, 
however, unless his language is strangely irrelevant, he implies 
that he was ready on occasion to appeal to Christ’s teaching 
‘in opposition to some of his fellow-Christians ; and the reason- 
able conclusion seems to be, that he fails to quote that teaching 
because it would not help an argument which was intended 
to establish the truth of Christianity against unbelievers, and 
not to maintain the correctness of a particular conception of 
Christianity against those who admitted the authority of 
the same Christian documents. In fact, critics expect from 
Justin’s Apologies what they have no right to expect except 
from his lost works against heretics. 

We are not, however, without direct evidence that Justin 
spoke as a representative of his fellow-Christians. We find, 
for instance, the following passage :—“ When we say [τῷ . . . 
φάσκειν ἡμᾶς] that the Logos, which is the offspring of God, has 
been begotten without intercourse, Jesus Christ our teacher, 
and that he having been crucified, and having died and risen 
again, ascended into heaven,” ete.2 That this “we” is not the 
mere plural of authorship is evident from the previous chapter, 
where he obviously speaks in the name of Christians, asking,— 
“Tf we say some things similarly to poets and philosophers, 

. why are we unjustly hated beyond all men?” In another 
place he says,—“ We have been taught [ἐδιδάχθημεν], and de- 


1 Apol., i. c. 22. 3 Apol., 1. €. 21. 


134 JUSTIN MARTYR 


clared before, that Christ is the first-born of God, being the 
Logos, of which the whole race of men partook.”? Here the 
derivative character of his Logos: doctrine is unequivocally 
asserted—asserted, too, in combination with one of the most 
remarkable ideas of the Fourth Gospel. 

In this connection we must notice the following passage :— 
“For that he was only-begotten [Movoyevys yap ὅτι ἣν] to the 
Father of the universe, being sprung in a peculiar manner 
from him as Logos and power [δύναμις], 8η6 afterwards having 
become man through the virgin [ἄνθρωπος . . . yevouevos],as we — 
learned from the memoirs, I declared before.”? The natural 
inference from this passage, taken in connection with the 
previous probabilities, is, that Justin found the titles μονογενής 
and λόγος applied to Christ in one of his Gospels. The clause, 
“as we learned from the memoirs,” might possibly refer only to 
the birth from a virgin; but there is nothing in the structure 
of the passage to suggest such a limitation; and even if we admit 
it, still ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος points to the Fourth Gospel rather 
than the Synoptics. We must, however, take a wider survey; 
and I think that a careful consideration of the context in the 
midst of which this sentence occurs, tends to prove that the 
word μονογενής was applied to Christ inthe memoirs. The pas- 
sage 1S part of a very long comparison which Justin institutes 
between the twenty-second Psalm and the recorded events of 
Christ’s life. For the purposes of this comparison he refers to — 
or quotes “the Gospel” once, and “the memoirs” ten times, — 
and farther refers to the latter three times in the observa- — 
tions which immediately follow. This is the only place in 
the Dialogue where “the memoirs” are mentioned. They are 
appealed to here because they furnish the successive steps οὗ 
the proof by which the Psalm is shown to be prophetic. Though 
the argument occasionally rambles, its main purpose is never 

1 Apol., i. c. 46. 2 Dial., ὁ. 105. 


“ee 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 135 


forgotten, and the proofs from the memoirs are all in point. 
We are therefore furnished with a rule by which to judge of 
the passage before us. The memoirs must in this case also 
have contained something which indicated the prophetic char- 
acter of the Psalm. What, then, are the words in the Psalm 
which have to be illustrated ?—< But thou, O Lord, remove 
not thy help far from me; attend unto my succour. Deliver 
my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten [τὴν μονογενῆ 
μου] from the hand of the dog. Save me from the mouth of 
the lion, and my humiliation from the horns of unicorns.” 
These words, it is added, “ are again in a similar way a teach- 
ing and prophecy of the things that belong to him [τῶν ὄντων 
αὐτῷ] and were going to happen. For that he was only-be- 
gotten,” ete. There is here no ground of comparison whatever 
except in the word μονογενής. Whether we adopt or not the 
conjecture of Maranus! that Justin read in the Psalm, τὸν 
μονογενῆ σου, it is evident that he understood μονογενῆ as 
referring to Christ; and accordingly he places the same word 
emphatically at the beginning of the sentence in which he 
proves the reference of this part of the Psalm to Jesus. For 
the same reason he refers not only to events, but to τὰ ὄντα 
αὐτῷ These are taken up first in the nature and title of 
μονογενής, Which immediately suggests λόγος and δύναμις, while 
the events are introduced and discussed afterwards. The allu- 
sion here to the birth through the virgin has nothing to do 
with the quotation from the Old Testament, and is probably 
introduced simply to show how Christ, although the only-be- 
gotten and Logos, was nevertheless a man. If the argument 
were,—These words allude to Christ, because the memoirs tell 
us that he was born from a virgin,—it would be utterly in- 
coherent. If it were-——These words allude to Christ, because 
the memoirs say that he was the only-begotten,—it would be 


1 See Otto’s note. 


136 JUSTIN MARTYR 


perfectly valid from Justin’s point of view. It would not, 
however, be suitable for a Jew, for whom the fact that Christ 
was μονογενής, not being an historical event, had to rest upon 
other authority, and therefore Justin, changing his usual form, 
says that he has already explained to him a doctrine which 
the Christians learned from the memoirs. It appears to me, 
then, most probable that the peculiar Johannine title μονογενής 
existed in the Gospels used by Justin. 

It is alleged, however, that even if we grant that the clause 
about the memoirs applies to the whole sentence, and not 
merely to the words immediately preceding, still the previous 
statement in 6. 100, to which Justin refers, completely disposes 
of the apparent allusion to the Fourth Gospel. It is there 
asserted that on account of his exposure to dishonour and 
suffering, Christ called himself the Son of Man, and that he gave 
Simon the surname of Peter for having by the revelation of the 
Father recognized him as the Son of God. In evidence of the 
first statement a passage is quoted :—“The Son of Man must 
suffer many things,” etc. The confession of Peter is men- 
tioned, but not formally quoted; and Justin then proceeds :— 
“ Having it written in the memoirs of his Apostles that he is 
the Son of God, and calling him Son, we have understood 
that he is so [νενοήκαμεν ὄντα], and that he came forth before 
all created things from the Father by his power and will, 
who also has been called in the words of the Prophets in 
various ways both wisdom and day and dawn and sword and 
stone and staffand Jacob and Israel, and [we have understood] 
that he became man through the virgin.” On this passage 
Thoma remarks that Justin can allege only Matt. xvi. 16 
from the memoirs in proof of the divine sonship of Christ.? 
Now Justin is not professing to give a list of passages where 


1 Justins literarisches Verhiltniss zu Paulus αι. zwm Johannes-Evang., 
il. p. 552, in the Zeztschr. fiir wiss. Theol., 1875. 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 137 


Jesus is called the Son of God. If so, he would have cited 
Luke i. 35, which he quotes for a different purpose a little 
farther on. For each of the titles which he mentions he 
selects but one illustrative statement. For the designation 
“Son of Man” he naturally chooses one connected with 
Christ’s suffering and death. For the other he adopts one in 
which Christ’s own approval of the title is most emphatically 
marked, and in which the recognition of his higher nature is 
ascribed to a revelation from God; and I know not that one 
more suited to the purpose could be found even in the Fourth 
Gospel. This argument from silence, therefore, has no weight. 
Thoma says further in relation to this passage, that that in 
which Justin agrees with John he has not found written, but 
has understood, namely from the prophetical writings. But, 
in the first place, the Logos does not appear by name in this 
passage at all. In the second place, Justin does not say that 
he has understood anything from the Prophets. In the third 
place, Thoma’s distinction is artificial, and in part founded on 
a mistranslation. He omits ὄντα in his rendering. If this be 
retained, the first thing which Justin says that he wnderstood 
is the very thing that he has just said was written ; and more- 
over the assertion about the birth through the virgin, which 
was contained in the memoirs, is also only understood. But, 
Thoma proceeds, how these things were understood is expressly 
declared, “‘for, says Justin immediately before, ‘as he promised 
in the Gospel (Matt. xi. 27) he has revealed to us everything 
which we have understood from the Scriptures (of the Old 
Testament) through his grace, while we recognize him as 
first-born of God before all creatures.” Now here Thoma 
has conveniently omitted a καί. Justin really says, “He re- 
vealed to us therefore all things, as many as we have under- 
stood also from the Scriptures through his grace.” In other 


1 “Erkannt”; but I retain my translation of νενοήκαμεν. 


138 JUSTIN MARTYR 


words, Justin believed that he had learned his doctrines on 


distinct Christian authority which went back to Christ himself, 
although he likewise found proofs of them in the Old Testa- 


—— 


ment. Thoma also remarks upon the fact that in the later οὗ 
the two passages (c. 105) the words are not, “as we read in the — 
memoirs,” but, “as we learned” from them, as though what is — 


learned were only a matter of inference. In reply to so — 


strange a criticism we need only ask, Did Justin merely infer — 


that Jesus uttered the words, “ Father, into thy hands I com- | 


mend my spirit,” since he only learned [ἔμαθον] the fact from 


the memoirs? Or did he intend the emperor merely to infer — 
[δύνασθε μαθεῖν] the events at the crucifixion from the Acts : 


‘i 


of Pilate or that the ruler of the demons was called Satan — 
from the Christian writings? We cannot, therefore, accept — 
Thoma’s conclusion that Justin’s whole Christology is simply — 


developed from the confession of Peter; for on examination 
it proves to be a groundless hypothesis. On the other hand, 


we have to remark, in comparing the earlier and later passages 
on which we have been commenting, that the former has an 
express reference to the Prophets as the warrant for a number 
of epithets which are not in the Gospels, and for nothing else; 
and that in the latter there is no reference to the Prophets, 
and there is no statement which is not contained either ex- 


pressly or by evident implication in our present Gospels. It — 
is also a mere assumption that Justin refers by his προεδήλωσα 
to the passage in chapter 100, in which the Logos is not men- — 
tioned, and in which there is nothing to imply the idea expressed 


here, and here only, by μονογενής. Why should we not rather 
have recourse to 6. 61,in which the Logos, accompanied as here 
by the name δύναμις, is mentioned for the first time, and to other 
passages in which similar views are unfolded? I think, there- 


fore, it is not wholly unreasonable to believe that Justin in- | 


1 Dial., c. 105. 2 Apol., 1. ce. 35, 48. 3 Apol., i. c. 28. 


= 
ea .:.. 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 139 


i 
memoirs, and that he did not consider it a mere inference from 


tended to assert the existence of his Logos doctrine in the 


the confession of Peter, to which there is no allusion whatever 
in the sentence under examination. 

_ From all these considerations I cannot but deem it highly 
probable that Justin had an authoritative Christian source 
for his doctrine of the Logos, and probable, though perhaps 
not in such a high degree, that this source was one of the 
memoirs. | 


| 
: 


There is one other point of some importance. The source 
from which the Logos doctrine was drawn did not contain an 
account of the miraculous birth. This is proved not only 
by the absence of all allusion to such an account, while the 
synoptic narrative is fully referred to and quoted, but from the 
fact that the Logos is brought into this connection only by 
a process of inference, identifying him with the Spirit which 
overshadowed Mary. “The Spirit, then, and the Power from 
God,” it is said, in reference to the narrative in Luke, “ it is 
impious to suppose to be anything else but the Logos.”? This 
is in significant agreement with our Fourth Gospel, and 
betrays the process by which Justin harmonized its doctrine 
with that of the Synopties. 

Now when we remember that Justin’s doctrine of the Logos 
is a developed form of the Johannine, that it harmonizes the 
Johannine doctrine with that of the Synoptics, that this har- 
monizing is the only impressive feature which it adds to the 
Johannine, that probably it rested on the authority of some 
evangelical source, and that this source probably did not 


1 Apol.,i.c. 33. It is'significant also that in Dial., c. 100, where he draws 
a parallel between Eve and Mary, he says that Eve conceived the Logos 
from the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death; but in the 
case of Mary he contents himself with referring to the narrative contained 
in Luke, and does not venture to say in express terms that she conceived 
the Logos of God. 


140 JUSTIN MARTYR 


contain an account of the miraculous birth, and further that — 
we have no reason to believe that such a source ever existed — 
except the Fourth Gospel, we can hardly help concluding © 
that Justin must have been acquainted with that Gospel, 
and have relied upon it as a basis of Christian dogmaties. 

We must next consider the language in which the doctrine 
of our apologist is expressed, and how far it coincides with — 
that of the Gospel. As he nowhere quotes the proem of the © 
Gospel, it might be supposed either that he has on inde- 
pendent grounds adapted the doctrine of Philo to Christianity, — 
or that he has embraced ideas which were indeed current — 
among Christians, but were not yet incorporated in any autho- | 
ritative writing. If our previous judgment has been correct, 
neither of these suppositions can be accepted. We have seen 
reason to believe that he had a written Christian source; and 
whatever this may have been, he has nowhere professedly Ἶ 
quoted it. This fact need occasion no difficulty ; for though, 
for various purposes, he repeatedly quotes his Gospels, he is 
also fond of employing his own language to describe the facts 
and doctrines recorded in them, and it is not his habit to 
state in the form of an evangelical quotation a doctrine which 
he wishes to prove, and then proceed to his demonstration. 
Rather is it his custom to present the Christian dogmas in 
his own style, or sometimes indeed in words which remind 
one of the consecutive clauses of a creed. In regard to the 
proem of the Fourth Gospel, supposing him to have had it be- 

1 Take as an example the following, which may have been a formula 
of exorcism: “ For by the name of this very Son of God, both first-born 
of all creation, and born through a virgin, and become man liable to 
suffering, and crucified under Pontius Pilate by your people, and having 
died, and risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, every demon 
being exorcised is overcome and brought into subjection” [Dial., c. 85]; 
or this: “Whom also we recognized as Christ the Son of God, crucified 


and risen and ascended into the heavens, and to come again as judge of all 
men without exception down to Adam himself” [Dzal., c. 132]. 


»-" RET SI δε, πνέει 


DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 141 


fore him, two causes may have operated to prevent him from 
quoting it. That proem,as we have seen, is not so explicit 
as to betray its full meaning to every casual reader. Justin’s 
doctrine stands to it in the relation of a commentary, and 
nothing could be more natural than that in apologies addressed 
to persons who did not admit the authority of the Gospels he 
should present his commentary without the text. The proem, 
moreover, does not form a part of the evangelical history, and 
does not repeat the words of Christ himself: and as it is no 
part of Justin’s plan to establish the dogmatic authority of the 
Apostles, he only follows his usual practice in failing to appeal 
to it. In one place he apologizes for citing even Christ’s 
words :—“ For since, Tryphon, you read, as you yourself 
acknowledged, the things taught by that Saviour of ours, I do 
not think that I have acted strangely in mentioning also brief 
oracles of his in addition to those of the Prophets.”! One 
other consideration remains. We know that Justin made use 
of the Apocalypse, and ascribed it to the Apostle John.2 He 
expressly refers to this work as containing the doctrine of 
the millennium; yet he does not quote it, but immediately 
cites a saying of Christ’s instead. Notwithstanding his belief 
in its apostolical origin, and his acceptance of it as a real 
revelation, he nowhere else refers to it and never quotes it; 
and were it not for this one casual allusion, there would be 
nothing to show that he had ever heard of it. From this 
example we may learn how very fallacious are arguments built 
upon the absence of evidence. But what I wish chiefly to 
notice is this: the Apocalypse contains the very title which 
Justin wanted as a basis for his dogma,—xaXeira TO ὄνομα 
αὐτοῦ, ‘O λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ3 Whatever may be the opinion of 
the modern interpreter, there can be little doubt that Justin 
would have explained this title in its metaphysical sense. We 


1 Dua. c. 18. 2° Dral., ὁ. 81. 3 xix, 13. 


142 JUSTIN MARTYR 


have, therefore, direct and positive proof that he had one Logos 
source, which he attributed to the Apostle John, and which 


nevertheless he neglects to quote. From the foregoing con- 


siderations we are justified in concluding that the argument 
against the use of the proem from the failure to cite it is 
destitute of force. 


te er rt 


It remains, then, for us to inquire whether Justin's language © 
is sufficiently near to that of the Gospel to be regarded as the 


language of a man who sought to express the doctrine of the 
proem in his own words, and in a way adapted to the require- 
ments of his particular controversy. The answer to this 


4 


question will be best given by exhibiting the language of the q 
two writers side by side, so far as they can be brought into 1 


comparison. 

JOHN. JUSTIN. 
Τὺ ° ~ s ς "4 ς , κι od 4 . A , 
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ λόγος, ὁ λόγος .. . συνὼν, . .. ὅτε THY ἀρχὴν 


. ε , a ᾿ 
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἣν προς]. .. 


τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν 
Cf. 


> \ “ \ 
εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τον 


ὁ λόγος, 1. I . 


κόσμον εἶναι, and 
\ a , 
πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσ- 


ov, ἜΝΙ 5, 24. 


Ul 3 ς᾽ wu, ΑΘ , 
πάντα Ol αὐτοῦ eye- 


. e , 
veto, 1. 3. O κοσμος 
“. “ι΄ » af 
δὶ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, 1. 


10. 


is in John viii. 25, and is often used by 
Justin instead of ἐν ἀρχῇ. 
59, he uses it to represent ἐν apyy of 
Gen. 1. 1.1] συνῆν τῷ πατρί [Dial., c. 62. 
Justin may have preferred συνῆν as less 


ἔκτισε [Apol., ii. c. 61. [Τὴν ἀρχήν 


In Apol., 1. 6. 


suggestive of an attribute than ἣν πρός]. 


x κ᾿ ᾿ ’ , ” , 
TOV Και T po TTOLYT EWS KOO (LOU οντα θεόν, 


[Dial., 6. 56, p. 276 9]. 


, 5 oo» 
θεός ἐστι καὶ ἔσται 


[Dial., ec. 58. As we have seen, the title © 


θεός is used repeatedly]. 


δι’ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε... 
πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ [4οϊ,, ii.c. 6]. ὥστε λόγῳ 
. γεγενῆσθαι τὸν πάντα κόσμον 
[Apol.,i.c. 59]. τὸν θεὸν διὰ λόγου τὸν 
κόσμον ποιῆσαι ἔγνωσαν [Apol., i. α. 641. 


θεοῦ... 


“. ‘A 
κοσμῆσαι TA 


HIS USE OF LANGUAGE 


a \ 9 . 
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν, 1. 4. 


ἣν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθι- 


νόν, 1. 9. τ. φ. τοῦ 
κόσμου; Vill. 12, 1x. 5. 


a ’ Ἂ 3 
ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄν- 


θρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς 


A , = 
TOV κόσμον, 1. 9. 


\ 7 3 ’ 
ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, 


5, ’ a 93 
ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξου- 
, a4 ~ 
ciav τέκνα θεοῦ γε- 
’ ~ / 
νέσθαι, τοῖς πιςτεύ- 
9 \ Bd 
ovow εἰς TO ὄνομα 


αὐτοῦ, 1. 12. 


\ , 
ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, 


mi, 14. 


143 
. ἀνέβλυσεν οὗτος 
ὃ Χριστός [Dial., Cc. 69; cf. John vii. 38, 
39]. 


πηγὴ ὕδατος ζῶντος . . 


~ , J , ‘ , , a 
TOU μόνου ἀμώμου καὶ δικαίου φωτὸς, τοῖς 


ἁνθρώποις πεμφθέντος [Dial., c 17]. 


® , 9 e ’ e 4A “ἊΝ ~ 
οὗτος ἐστιν O EV Ἱερουσαλὴμ αἰώνιον φως 


λάμπειν μέλλων [1)1αἷ., 6. 113). 


ὁ φωτιζόμενος [Apol., 1. 6. 61, οὗ one who is 


baptized]. λόγος γὰρ ἣν καὶ ἔστιν ὁ ἐν 
παντὶ ὧν [Apol., 11. 10]. τὸ ἔμφυτον 
παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου 
[Apol., ii. 6. 8]. οὗ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων 
μετέσχε [Apol., i. c. 46]. 


e ᾿ς , , δ ΔΘ 
of μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι 


[Apol., i. ὁ. 46]. 


5, > a ° a A A mn 
. ἄνθρωποι, ἐν οἷς οἰκεῖ TO Tapa τοῦ 


’ 9 ~ 
οἱ πιστεύοντες αὐτῷ 


θεοῦ σπέρμα, ὁ λόγος [Apol., i. c. 32]. 


ε , 4 +A 
ὁ λόγος. σαρκοποιηθεὶς ἄνθρωπος 


γέγονεν [Apol., i. 6. 32. We have seen 
how often similar expressions occur. 
Compare the σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπή- 
σαντα, of the Nicene and other Creeds], 


σάρκα ἔχων [Dial., ec. 481. 


μονογενής, i. 18, ete. | μονογενής [Dial., 6. 105]. 


Though this comparison cannot prove that Justin made use 
of the Fourth Gospel, it cannot be denied that his language is 
sufficiently like the Johannine to be quite consistent with a 
relationship of dependence between them. We find in the 

Apologist four characteristic Johannine expressions, λόγος, φῶς, 


144 JUSTIN MARTYR 


σὰρξ ἴῃ σαρκοποιηθείς, and μονογενής. We have an almost 
identical statement of the creation of the κόσμος and πάντα δὶ 
αὐτοῦ, the very similar συνῆν τῷ πατρί and τὴν ἀρχήν used of 
the Logos, and one or two other less marked resemblances. 
The phraseology, then, in which Justin propounds his doctrine 
is not incompatible with our previous conclusion. , 
This conclusion does not seem to me in any way invalidated — 
by Dr Abbott’s perfectly just remark, “That the multiplicity - 
of names given to the Logos (Tryph., 56, 61, 100, ete.)\—Son, 
Wisdom, Angel, Day, East, Sword, ete.—suggests Philo’s (1. 427) 


— ee 


‘many-named’ Logos rather than that of John.”* For what — 
could be more natural than that Justin the philosopher should ; 
philosophise about the doctrine of the Gospel, and borrow — 
many an interpreting hint from Philo? The notion that the | 
early Fathers were severely critical in doctrinal matters, and | 
confined themselves rigidly to the exact meaning and language © 
of the Scriptures, seems to me quite contrary to’ the evidence. 
The fundamental doctrine which Justin wishes to establish is | 
in John, and not in Philo; and he seeks to support it and give 
it its complete dogmatic setting, by a long course of argument — 
which is not in the Gospel. This method is to my mind a 
mark of the later writer, and corresponds with the method 
which has been largely pursued by theologians who were well 
acquainted with the canonical Scriptures. Justin, in short, 
ranks with the long line of ecclesiastical controversialists and 
commentators, and not with the men whose inspiration pro- 
duced in holy Scriptures the formative ideas of Christianity. — 
We must now proceed to notice certain forms of expression — 
and modes of thought of a more miscellaneous character, which 
remind one of the Fourth Gospel. Some of these, it will be 
observed, are so similar to the Johannine language, that they 
might be treated as quotations; but I shall reserve for the 


1 Encycl, Bibl., ii. 1837. 


5 MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS 148 
latter head only those passages in which Justin is unques- 
tionably borrowing from an earlier writer. The following 
apparent allusions have nothing in their context to indicate 
their dependent origin. 

The first expression which demands our attention borders 
closely on exact quotation. It is found in the first Apology,} 
where it is said that the Christians “ honour Jesus Christ, who 
both became our teacher of these things and was born to this 
end [εἰς τοῦτο γεννηθέντα], who was crucified under Pontius 
Pilate.” Here not only do the words point to John xviii. 37, 
εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι, but the perfectly needless reference to 
Pilate reminds us that it was before the Roman governor that 
this expression was used. 

We may next observe a few phrases descriptive of Christ’s 
coming into the world. Justin, like John, regards the eleva- 
tion of the brazen serpent in the wilderness as typical of the 
crucifixion,” and in speaking of it he says that it denoted 
salvation to those προσφεύγουσι τῷ τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον υἱὸν αὐτοῦ 
πέμψαντι εἰς τὸν κόσμον8 Now this idea of God’s sending his 
Son into the world occurs in the same connection in John iii. 
17, and, strange as it may appear, it is an idea which, in the 
New Testament, is peculiar to John. Outside the Johannine 
writings, there are only two passages in which the expression 
εἰς τὸν κόσμον iS used in relation to Christ, and there it is 
connected with his coming, not with his being sent; within 
these writings it occurs no fewer than eleven times. It is 
remarkable, however, that in the four instances® in which 
John speaks of Christ’s being sent into the world, he prefers 
the word ἀποστέλλω, so that Justin’s phrase is not entirely 
coincident with the Johannine. But the use of πέμπω itself is 


ee. 13. 2 Apol., i. c. 60. Dial., cc. 91, 94 and 131. 
3 Dial., c. gt. 41 Tim. i. 15 and Heb. x. 5. 


5 T include the First Epistle, iv. 9. 
IO 


146 JUSTIN MARTYR 


curious. Except by John, it is applied to Christ in the New © 


Testament only twice,’ whereas John uses it twenty-five times. 
Justin’s language, therefore, in the thought which it expresses, 
in the selection of words, and in its connection, is closely 
related to John’s, and has no other parallel in the New Testa- 
ment. A similar remark will apply to another phrase used 
by Justin, τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλθόντα," which finds its parallel 
in John’s ἐγὼ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον, and, as regards the παρά, 
in other parts of the Gospel, but nowhere else in the New 
Testament. Again, Justin speaks of Christ as θεὸν ἄνωθεν 
προελθόντα, and with this we may compare John’s ὁ ἄνωθεν 
ἐρχόμενος," an expression characteristic of himself. 

One of the passages in which Justin uses the Johannine 
πέμπω forms a transition to another mode of thought which 
occurs with great frequency in the Fourth Gospel. The 


A al , ~ / ° 4 A at | 
words are, κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτὸν πατρος καὶ 


δεσπότου κιτιλ Compare with this John’s τὸ. θέλημα τοῦ 


πέμψαντός me,” and τοῦ πέμψαντός με πατρός, expressions 
quite characteristic. Elsewhere Justin speaks of things as 
happening to Christ κατὰ τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θέλημα, and of 
grace as coming from him κατὰ τὸ θέλ. τοῦ 7° He 
repeatedly says that the incarnation took place according to 
the will of the Father, but generally uses, not the Johannine 
θέλημα, but βουλή or βούλησις. Once, however, he says, ὡς 
τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρωπείου σπέρματος γεγενημένου 
GAN’ ἐκ θελήματος θεοῦ. This may be a reminiscence of John 
i. 13, a text which, we know, was applied to Christ by Irenzeus ” 
and Tertullian, who for the genuine reading substituted ὃς... 


1 Luke xx. 13 and Rom. viii. 3. 2 Apol, ii. c. 6. 

3 xvi. 27; see also 28 and xvii. 8. * Dual., ὃ. 64. 

δ 30s 6 Dral., 6. 140. ” iv. 34, V. 30, Vi. 38, 39, 40. 
8 xiv 120+ δ΄. γ..37, Vis 44, Vill. 16; 18, 211/40. 

Pian toe, * 9. 7)γαϊ ce, 116. 11. Dial., c. 63. 


12 Her., 111. xvi. 2 and xix, 2. 13 De Carne Christi, cc. 19 and 24. 


Ss oe δο͵ιμμμμμδιω 


— a 


MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS 147 


ἐγεννήθη. The Johannine doctrine of Christ’s dependence on 
the Father is clearly set forth, though without much similarity 
of language, in the statement,—“I affirm that he never did 
anything except those things which the Maker of the universe, 
above whom there is no other God, wished him both to do and 
to say.”’! With this we may compare John’s statements,— 
“the Son can do nothing of himself,”? and, “I speak not of 
myself, but the Father who sent me himself gave me a com- 
mandment what I should say and what I should speak.” 
More remarkable is an appended clause which occurs after a 
reference to Christ’s resurrection, ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ λαβὼν 
ἔχει On account of the present ἔχει, the 6 apparently refers 
to the permanent risen state implied in the previous clause ; 
but the thought may have been suggested by John’s ταύτην τὴν 
ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ πατρός mov,> Which is introduced in a 
similar connection. 

Justin’s allusions to the brazen serpent as typical of the 
crucifixion constitute another parallel between him and the 
writer of the Gospel, but can hardly prove his dependence on 
the latter, as he seized with avidity every type which a 
torturing exegesis could extract from the Old Testament. 
We may, however, compare his statement that this particular 
type indicated σωτηρία τοῖς πιστεύουσι ἐπὶ τοῦτον K.T-A.° With 
John’s ἵνα πᾶς ὃ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται κ-τ.λ.ἴ 

More important is his account of the significance of the 
elements in the Lord’s Supper. He says, “We were taught 
that” the bread and wine “were the flesh [σάρκα] and blood 
of Jesus who was made flesh” [σαρκοποιηθέντος].8 Now, not 
only are we reminded of John by σαρκοποιηθέντος, but still 
more by the use of σάρκα to describe the bread. In the New 
Testament the word employed is invariably σῶμα. Justin 


1. 7)γαῖ., ο. 56, p. 276 D. 2 ν. 19. 3 ΧΙ, 40. 4 Dial., ¢. 100. 
Sx. 18. © Dial, ¢..94. 7 1. 15. 8 Apol., i. c. 66. 


148 JUSTIN MARTYR 


had not forgotten this; for as soon as he quotes the account | 
of the institution of the Eucharist, he cites this term correctly. 
Nor can we say that the adoption of σάρξ was forced on him | 
by his reference to the incarnation; for elsewhere he allows 
his usual language respecting the incarnation to be modified 
by a reference to the Eucharist,—rod ἄρτου, ὃν παρέδωκεν . . . 
εἰς ανάμνησιν τοῦ Te σωματοποιήσασθαι αὐτὸν K.7T.A.| In John, 
however, the word σάρξ is used repeatedly, not indeed in 
connection with the last supper, but in a passage which was 
inevitably applied as a commentary on its meaning.? Justin's 
use of the term, therefore, is distinctively Johannine. 

There are a few other expressions of less moment which may 
be briefly referred to in the order in which they occur in 
Justin’s writings. He says that Christians honour God and 
the Son and the Spirit λόγῳ καὶ adnOeia.2 Compare John’s 
πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. Justin might naturally substitute λόγῳ 
for πνεύματι, a8 he has a moment before included the πνεῦμα 
among the objects of worship. We may observe in passing 
that we have here another instance of doctrinal expansion ; for 
the Gospel strictly confines to the Father the spiritual worship 
which it commends. Again, the statement that the prophets 
spoke only those things ἃ ἤκουσαν καὶ ἃ εἶδον," suggests ὃ ἑώρακε 
καὶ ἤκουσε, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖδ The reminder that “the elements 
do not idle or keep the sabbath,” 1 and that “God has instituted 
the same administration of the universe on this and on all 
other days,” 8 is a commentary on John’s, “my Father worketh 
hitherto.” The argument against the observance of the 
sabbath from the fact that circumcision was permitted on that 
day,’° is found, though with more point, in the Gospel. The 
declaration that “those who in circumcision come to him [προσ- 


1 Daat.,¢.'70. 2 vi. 51-56. 3 Avol., 1. ὁ. 6. ταν. 21 
5 Dial.,'c. 7. 6 John iii. 32. 7 Dial., c. 23. 8 Dial., c. 29. 
oe 1. 10 Dial., c. 27. Th Wil. 22) 22. 


APPARENT QUOTATIONS 149 


tovras|,. . . he will receive and bless,” + is similar in sentiment 
to the evangelist’s “him that cometh [ἐρχόμενον] to me I will 
not cast out.”? The expression ζῶν ὕδωρ, and the idea of this 
water's gushing up in the heart,’ recall the narrative in John 
iv. And, lastly, the assertion that “to us it was given... to 
know all the things of the Father,’* reminds us of the 
Johannine, “all things that I have heard from my Father I 
have made known unto you.” ® 

We have still to refer to three passages which appear to me 
to be quotations from the Fourth Gospel. The most celebrated 
of these, that relating to the new birth, has already been fully 
discussed; and if our reasoning has been correct, it renders 
probable the use of the Gospel by Justin. The two remaining 
passages must be considered here. Referring to the testimony 
of John the Baptist, Justin says:—“Men supposed him to be 
the Christ ; to whom even he himself cried, οὐκ εἰμὶ ὃ Χριστός, 
ἀλλὰ φωνὴ βοῶντος, for there shall come he who is stronger 
than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry.”® The former 
part of this testimony is found only in John,’—ov« εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ 
Χριστός. . .. ᾿γὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος x.7.’. The entire passage 
as it stands does not occur in any of our existing Gospels, but 
is made up out of John, Luke and Matthew; and it may there- 
fore be contended that it is borrowed from some unknown 
source. ΤῸ those who are acquainted with the phenomena of 
Justin’s quotations from the Old Testament, and who know 
how easily parallel passages become mixed together in mem- 
oriter citation (to say nothing of the fact that an author might 
intentionally combine the passages best suited to his purpose), 
this supposition will not appear necessary; and if it is not 
necessary, it is more critical to explain the facts by reference 
to known sources than to have recourse to purely imaginary 


“1 Dial., ἃ 33- ahs, AF 3 Dial., c. 114. 4 Dual., c. 121. 
bxy.:15; 6 Dral., c. 88. τ 20 and 23. 


150 JUSTIN MARTYR 


documents. The third apparent quotation, so far as I am 
aware, was first noticed in the present discussion, and indeed 
it was generally classed among the proofs that Justin made 
use of an apocryphal Gospel. In the larger Apology,’ the 
following words are quoted from Isaiah,? αἰτοῦσι με νῦν κρίσιν; 
and in evidence that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, 
Justin asserts, διασύροντες αὐτὸν ἐκάθισαν ἐπὶ βήματος καὶ 
εἶπον" Kpivov ἡμῖν. Now this event is nowhere recorded in our 
Gospels; yet the most important of the words in which it is 
described occur, with the alteration of a single letter, in the 
Fourth Gospel,? ὁ οὖν Πιλάτος . . . ἤγαγεν ἔξω Tov Ἰησοῦν καὶ 
ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ βήματος. ᾿Ἑκάθισεν here is generally understood 
in its intransitive sense; but what more natural than that 
Justin, in his eagerness to find a fulfilment of the prophecy, 
should take it transitively ?+ He might then add the state- 
ment that the people said κρῖνον ἡμῖν as an obvious inference 
from the fact of Christ’s having been placed on the tribunal, 
and to bring the event into a closer verbal connection with the 
prophecy, just as in an earlier chapter® he appends to the 
synoptic account the circumstance that the ass on which 
Christ rode into Jerusalem was bound to a vine, in order to 
bring the event into connection with Genesis xlix. 11.6 We 


TY py 

2 lviii. 2, which, by the way, is represented as belonging to Ixv. 2. 

Sea, 17. 

4 It is so used by Josephus, who says that Ananus καθίζει συνέδριον 
κριτῶν, and again καθίσαι συνέδριον (Antig., XX. ix. 1). It is intransitive in 
the only other passage where it is used in John xii. 14. Elsewhere 
καθέζεσθαι is used, iv. 6, xi. 20, xx. 12. The transitive use is found in 
I Cor. vi. 4 and Eph. i. 20. Dr A. Roberts ably defends the transitive 
meaning in John xix. 13 (Hxpositor, 4th Series, viii., 1893, pp. 296 sq.). 

Bie ΞΟ: 

6 It is conceded by Hilgenfeld [Die Evang. Justin’s, p. 224] that this — 
circumstance was drawn from Justin’s own imagination under the influence 
of the prophecy. His notion that it is the mere inconsistency of an apologist 
to allow such influence in one instance and yet not concede that the 


\ 


i 


GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER I51 


have thus, as I conceive, an adequate explanation of the origin 
of this apocryphal narrative. On the other hand, it does not 
seem likely that the agreement between Justin and John is a 
mere coincidence, though of course the possibility of this 
cannot be denied. It cannot in this instance be maintained 
that John borrowed from Justin, because the words of the 
latter are quite unambiguous, and could not have suggested 
the event related in the Gospel; and the supposition that they 
both used a common source is precluded by the different uses 
of the verb, and by the want of agreement in the general sense 
of the two passages. 

The discovery of a fragment of the Gospel according to 
Peter in 1892, containing the account of the passion and 
resurrection, reopened the question, and it was triumphantly 
asserted that Justin was now proved to have derived his 
statement from this apocryphal source. The evidence seems 
to me wholly adverse to this conclusion. The text of Peter 
runs thus:—‘“ But they, having taken the Lord, pushed him 
running, and said evpwuev! τὸν υἱὸν Tov θεοῦ, having got power 
over him, and they arrayed him in purple, καὶ ἐκάθισαν αὐτὸν 
ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, λέγοντες Δικαίως κρῖνε, βασιλεῦ τοῦ 
Ἰσραήλ. Here the same apocryphal incident is referred to, 
and there is some resemblance of language between the two 
accounts. There are, however, also considerable differences ; 
and it is strange that those who think the slightest deviation 
from a canonical text sufficient to prove that it was not used, 
should be so confident that Peter must be the source from 
which Justin borrowed this account. In comparing the 
several texts, we observe that after ἐκάθισαν Justin has the 
Johannine ἐπὶ βήματος, and not the Petrine ἐπὶ καθέδραν 


epithet μονογενής was borrowed from the 22nd Psalm, is sufficiently refuted 
by our previous investigation. 
1 The reading of the MS., generally given as σύρωμεν. 


152 JUSTIN MARTYR 


κρίσεως, and he omits δικαίως, and βασιλεῦ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. But 
certainly, it is thought, διασύροντες must be taken from the 
Petrine cvpwuev. Unfortunately σύρωμεν is only a conjectural 
reading, the word in the manuscript being εὕρωμεν. The word 
is probably wrong; but it does not follow that σύρωμεν is 
right. Other suggestions are εὕρομεν; ἄρωμεν, as in Isaiah 111, 
10, as Justin once quotes it’; and (very plausibly) στρωμεν, 
an abbreviation for oravpouev.2. But even if σύρωμεν be the 
right reading, it does not explain Justin’s διασύροντες, for the 
former word signifies “let us drag,” while the latter means 
“mocking” or “slighting,’? a sense which entirely suits the 
context, and is indeed required by it, to show that the demand 
for judgment was an act of mockery. The Petrine text, 
therefore, fails to explain Justin’s. 

Here we might pause, if our attention were limited to the 
present passage; but as we have at last a Gospel ‘which is no 
longer “ ghost-like,” it is important to consider whether the 
Gospel of Peter was one of Justin’s memoirs. The only other 
passage which can be supposed to favour an affirmative reply 
is one describing the partition of Christ’s clothing. The 
following are the words in Peter :—xat τεθεικότες τὰ ἐνδύματα 
ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ διεμερίσαντο, καὶ λαχμὸν ἔβαλον ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς. 
Justin’s are as follows:—ol σταυρώσαντες αὐτὸν ἐμέρισαν τὰ 
ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἑαυτοῖς, λαχμὸν βάλλοντες ἕκαστος κατὰ τὴν τοῦ 
κλήρου ἐπιβολήν, ὁ ἐκλέξασθαι ἐβεβούλητος It will be 
observed that the two statements are very far from coincident. 
Justin omits the first part of Peter, and Peter does not contain 


1 Dial., 136. In 17 he has the usual reading, δήσωμεν. 

2 See The Gospel according to Peter and the Revelation of Peter, by J. A. 
Robinson and Δ. R. James, 1892, p. 17, for the first two suggestions. The 
last was proposed by the Master of St John’s College, Cambridge, at a 
meeting of the Philological Society, May 11, 1893; see the Academy for 
June 3, 1893, p. 486. 

3 We may illustrate this sort of change of meaning by our own words 
“ treat” and “intreat.” 


GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER 153 


the explanation of the proceeding which Justin adds to the 
account in the Gospels, and which looks like an attempt to 
harmonise the Synoptics and John. Justin has the canonical 
ἑμάτια, not the Petrine ἐνδύματα, and resembles John in using 
ἕκαστος. In Apology i. 35 he refers more simply to the same 
event, and uses the words ἔβαλον κλῆρον, following, in common 
with the Synoptics, the reading of the LXX. in Psalm xxi, 
[xxii.] 19. The connection with Peter, therefore, turns entirely 
on the use of the phrase λαχμὸν βάλλειν. This phrase is used 
also by Cyril of Jerusalem in relation to the same event,’ and 
by no other writer, “as far as we know.”’? Cyril, however, 
does not follow Peter, for he limits the Aaxuds to the χιτών, 
of which no notice is taken in the apocryphal Gospel. The 
word must in his time have been a rare one, for he adds the 
explanation, κλῆρος de ἣν ὁ λαχμός, and the natural inference 
is that there must have been some authority for using the 
word in connection with this particular event. The Fourth 
Gospel does not use the noun, but represents the soldiers as 
Saying, in reference to the χιτών, λάχωμεν περὶ αὐτοῦ." 
Nonnus, in his paraphrase of this verse, twice uses Aaxuos, 
but not the phrase λαχμὸν βάλλειν Dr Swete conjectures 
that there may have been a version of the 22nd Psalm which 
read ἔβαλλον or ἔβαλον λαχμόνδ However this may be, the 
deviation of Justin, and still more of Cyril, from Peter is 
against the supposition that the phrase is due to the use of 
the apocryphal Gospel, to which Cyril certainly was not likely 
to attach any authority. 

We must now briefly notice the evidence against Justin’s 
use of this Gospel. Dr Swete enumerates eighteen circum- 


1 Catech., xiii. 26. 

2 See Dr Swete’s The Akhmim Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of St 
Peter, 1893, p. xxxiv and p. 6. 

3 xix. 24. 4 Swete, p. xxxiv. 5 Tb. 


154 JUSTIN MARTYR 


stances in Peter which are not in any of the canonical Gospels." 
Of these the only one in Justin is that relatmg to the judg- 
ment-seat, which we have already examined. On the other 
hand, Justin, in his casual references to the part of the history 
covered by the Fragment, has six circumstances which are not 
in Peter; and it deserves especial notice that four of these are 
among the incidents which, owing to their deviation from the 
canonical Gospels, have suggested the use of an apocryphal 
source. Two of these passages refer to the words and the 
manner of the mocking? A third contains the statement 
that after the crucifixion of Christ all his acquaintances with- 
drew, having denied him.2 Another asserts that after the 
crucifixion his disciples who were with him were scattered 
until he rose from the dead.t The ery, “ Father, into thy 
hands I commend my spirit,” which Justin expressly says he 
has learned from the memoirs,? is in Luke, but not in Peter. 
The statement that there were nails in the hands and feet of 
Jesus ® is agreeable to the canonical account, but opposed to 
the Petrine, which refers only to the hands.’ Peter represents 
Jesus as silent at the moment of crucifixion, “as being without 
pain,” ὡς μηδὲν πόνον éxwv® Justin, on the other hand, asserts 
the reality of his suffering in the strongest way.® Finally, 
Peter gives a curious turn to the cry from the cross, ἡ δύναμίς 
μου, ἡ δύναμις, κατέλειψας pe’? Justin, agreeably to Matthew 
and Mark, has ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός," wa τί ἐγκατέλιπές pe” These 
facts seem to demonstrate that the Gospel of Peter was not 
one of Justin’s principal sources; and even if he read it (and 


1 Pp, xili. sqq. 2 Apol., i. 38 ; Dial., τοι. 3 Apol., 1. 50. 
4 Dal., 53. 5 Dial., 105. 
6 Apol., i. 35 ; Dual., 97. ie” 


8 iv. This can hardly mean, “as if he felt no pain,” though he was 
really suffering acutely. 

9 Dral., 57, 98, 99, 103. 0% 

11 Matt., θεέμου. Mark also inserts μου. 12 Dial., 99. 


ALLEGED NEGLECT OF THE GOSPEL 155, 


as an assailant of heresies he may very probably have done so,. 
if it was extant, which is doubtful), and if a phrase or two: 
remained in his memory, and got mixed up with his recol- 
lections of other sources, it would by no means follow that it 
was one of his acknowledged Gospels. 

By the foregoing investigation one point appears to me to 
be completely demonstrated, namely, that if Justin had the 
Fourth Gospel, he did not treat it with entire neglect, but 
allowed it a very important place in the construction of his 
theology, and in the general colouring of his thought and 
language. More than this, however, may be reasonably 
inferred. Several separate lines of inquiry have, if my 
judgment be not at fault, established a probability that Justin 
was in possession of the Gospel. The probability may in each 
instance be slight, and it is always possible for a critic to 
object that the phenomena may be susceptible of some other 
explanation; but several weak probabilities, all converging on 
the same result, may constitute a very strong argument, and 
nothing can be more utterly uncritical than to reject a large 
mass of evidence because its details fall considerably short of 
demonstration. We must remember, moreover, that the 
evidence afforded by Justin’s writings is not in favour of 
something quite unexpected, and opposed to our best historical 
information. On the contrary, it simply coincides, as we have 
seen, with a legitimate historical presumption furnished by 
the writings of Irenzus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, 
and Theophilus, to say nothing of later authors; and it points 
to a plain matter of fact which in itself is entirely credible. 

We must, however, notice an objection which is urged as 
fatal to the supposition that Justin was acquainted with the 
Gospel. It is said that he gives a particular description of the 
character of Christ’s teaching, and that this is exactly suited 
to the style of the Synoptists, but wholly inapplicable to the 


[56 JUSTIN MARTYR 


protracted argumentation of the Johannine Gospel. Justin's 
statement is the following: Βραχεῖς δὲ καὶ σύντομοι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
λόγοι γεγόνασιν" οὐ γὰρ σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν, ἀλλὰ δύναμις θεοῦ ὁ 
λόγος αὐτοῦ ἣν Now there are several objections to the 
application which is sometimes made of this passage. In the 
first place, I do not think the Greek asserts what is ascribed 
to it. Mr J. J. Tayler translates it as follows: “His words 
were brief and concise; for he was no sophist: but his word 
was a power of God.”? I dissent with great diffidence from 
so high an authority ; but surely the words παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λόγοι 
are not identical in meaning with of λόγοι αὐτοῦ. Ought not 
the passage to be rendered, “Brief and concise sayings have 
proceeded from him”?? If so, Justin is describing, not the 
universal, but only the prevailing and prominent character of 
Christ's teaching.* As it is his purpose to furnish some 
examples for the benefit of his readers, he very naturally 
and properly selects short passages which are intelligible 
without their context: and he introduces the clause under 
consideration simply to explain why he can illustrate Christ’s 
teaching without undue prolixity. He accordingly follows 
for the most part the Sermon on the Mount, but adds some 
other sayings which were easily suggested by the topics with 
which he was dealing. But again, the description is not 
really appropriate to all the teaching in the Synoptics. It 

1 Apol., 1. c. 14. 

2 An Attempt to ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1867, p. 64. 

5.1 am reminded of Euripides, Hippolytus, 478, Εἰσὶν δ᾽ ἐπῳδαὶ καὶ λόγοι 
θελκτήριοι, Which means, not “Charms and words are soothing,” but 
“ There are such things as charms and soothing words.” 

4 Even if the article were used, it would surely be hypercritical to insist 
on the universality of the statement, which would be sufficiently accurate 
if it described the general impression of Christ’s teaching derived from the 
four Gospels collectively. Certainly in none of them is found the connected 
and argumentative discourse of a σοφιστής, and we need not except the 


Fourth Gospel if we say that Christ’s teaching is not σοφία ἀνθρώπων, but 


δύναμις θεοῦ. 


ALLEGED NEGLECT OF THE GOSPEL 157 


excludes the longer parables; and if the latter part of the 
Dialogue had been lost, it would probably have been used as 
a conclusive proof that Justin’s failure to refer to the parables 
was due to their absence from his Memoirs. It is not till 
towards the close of the Dialogue! that we at last meet with 
an abstract of the parable of the Sower. And lastly, the 
description is not so inapplicable to the Fourth Gospel as is 
sometimes alleged. The book contains in reality very little 
connected argumentation; and even the longest discourses 
consist rather of successive pearls of thought strung on a 
thread of association than of consecutive discussion and proof. 
In a previous chapter I have collected a large number of 
βραχεῖς καὶ σύντομοι λόγοι, Sayings, that is, which, however 
closely some of them may be connected with their context, 
contain in themselves complete and satisfying thoughts. The 
objection, therefore, appears to me to rest on a misunder- 
standing of Justin’s Greek and on erroneous criticism, and to 
be consequently destitute of force. 

But why, then, it may be asked, has Justin not quoted the 
Fourth Gospel at least as often as the other three? I cannot 
tell, any more than I can tell why he has never named the 
supposed authors of his Memoirs, or has mentioned only one 
of the parables, or made no reference to the apostle Paul, or 
nowhere quoted the Apocalypse, though he believed it to be an 
apostolic and prophetical work. His silence may be due to 
pure accident, or the book may have seemed less adapted to 
his apologetic purposes; but considering how many things 
there are about which he is silent, we cannot admit that the 
argumentum a silentio possesses in this case any validity.” 


ἘΝ 2. 

* An instructive instance of the danger of arguing from what is not told 
is furnished by Theophilus of Antioch. He does not mention the names of 
the writers of the Gospels, except John ; he does not tell us anything about 


---“-“ 


158 JUSTIN MARTYR 


I think, therefore, that the evidence as a whole, though 5 
falling short of demonstration, is sufficient to authorize a 
reasonable confidence that Justin Martyr was acquainted with 
the Fourth Gospel. 


Three questions which still remain may be very briefly dis- 


cussed. Did Justin include the Fourth Gospel among his 
Memoirs? Thoma,! though admitting that our Apologist 


made ample use of the Gospel, yet for no very obvious reason 
pronounces in the negative. But if our examination of 
Justin’s use of μονογενής be correct, and if the passages which 
we have regarded as quotations from the Gospel be really 


such, the question must be answered in the affirmative. The 


second question is, Did he regard the book as historical ? 
This also is answered in the negative by Thoma,’ who believes 
that the Gospel was employed as a doctrinal commentary on 
the historical tradition and ecclesiastical usages. If, however, 
the Gospel was one of the Memoirs, it must have been regarded 


as historical, at least to a considerable extent; and the three 


any of them ; he says nothing about the origin or the date of the Gospels 
themselves, or about their use in the Church. He quotes from them 
extremely little, though he quotes copiously from the Old Testament. 
But most singular of all, in a defence of Christianity he tells us nothing 
about Christ himself ; if I am not mistaken, he does not so much as name 
him or allude to him; and, if the supposition were not absurd, it might 


be argued with great plausibility that he cannot have known anything ~ 


about him. For he undertakes to explain the origin of the word Christian ; 
‘but there is not a word about Christ, and his conclusion is ἡμεῖς τούτου 
εἵνεκεν καλούμεθα Χριστιανοὶ ὅτι χριόμεθα ἔλαιον θεοῦ [Ad Autol., i. 12]. 
In the following chapter, when he would establish the doctrine of the 
resurrection, you could not imagine that he had heard of the resurrection 
of Christ ; and instead of referring to this, he has recourse to the changing 
seasons, the fortune of seeds, the dying and reappearance of the moon, and 
the recovery from illness. We may learn from these curious facts that it 
is not correct to say that a writer knows nothing of certain things, simply 
because he had not occasion to refer to them in his only extant writing, 
-or even because he does not mention them when his subject would seem 
naturally to lead him to do so. 
1 Zeitschr. fiir wiss. Theol., 1875, pp. 549-553. 2 Pp. 553-560. 


THE GOSPEL ONE OF THE MEMOIRS 159 


quotations from it prove that Justin was willing to use it as 
an authority for historical statements. Nevertheless, its 
reception as a “spiritual” or allegorical Gospel may have 
induced him to rely chiefly on the Synoptics for his history, 
and may help to explain his manner of using it. Our last 
question is, Did Justin ascribe the Gospel to the apostle John 
as its author? ΤῸ this question also Thoma! gives a negative 
reply. His arguments, however, are founded entirely on the 
silence of Justin. The Apologist, he thinks, could not have 
failed to name the author of such a work, had he supposed 
_him to be one of the Twelve. But he has failed to name the 
authors of his Memoirs, though he attributed to them an 
apostolic authority. I must again repeat that it is only in the 
most casual way that he has named John as the author of the 
Apocalypse. So far from assuming that the celebrity of that 
apostle must have reached the ears of Tryphon, he introduces 
him as “a certain man [ἀνήρ τις] among us whose name was 
John” ;? and so far from insisting on his merits as author of 
the Apocalypse, he does not even say that such a book was in 
existence, but only that in a revelation made to him he 
prophesied. For whatever reason, Justin nowhere dwells 
upon the origin or authenticity of Christian writings, and the 
little that we can glean about them is brought in quite 
incidentally. We have, therefore, no ground whatever for 
assuming that if he regarded John as the author of the 
Gospel, he would have said so, On the other hand, there is 
nothing in his own writings to show that he did so regard 
him. The most that can be alleged is, that his affirmation 
that the Memoirs “were composed by his [Christ’s] apostles 
and their followers,’* quite coincides with the traditional 
view. I think, indeed, that Hilgenfeld’s criticism upon the 
use of the articles in this passage, τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ Kat 


1 Pp. 560-563. 2 Dial., 6. 81. 3 Duaal., ὁ. 103. 


— 
τω 


160 JUSTIN MARTYR 


τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων, is substantially correct. 
Justin refers to the apostles and their followers as two classes, 
each of whom had taken part in the production of the 
Gospels; but he does not say whether one or more from each 
class engaged in the labours of authorship, or whether the 
same Gospel was or was not composed partly by an apostle 
and partly by a follower. His object is not to describe the 
origin of the several Gospels, but to exhibit the kind 
of authority which he claimed for their narratives. His 
language, however, though inadequate to prove that he 
possessed at least four Gospels, two of them written by 
apostles and two by their followers, is precisely such as he 
might have used if he held the later traditional view; and 
as evidence in this direction, it is surely not without 
significance that he appeals to the authority of followers of 
the apostles precisely in a passage where he alludes to an 
event recorded only by Luke, and that he describes these 
followers precisely by the term which Luke applies to himself 
in the preface to his Gospel. We are, then, entitled to assert 
that as he claimed an apostolic origin for at least one of his 
Gospels, and as he uses language quite consistent with the 
traditional belief and curiously conforming to it in two 
particulars, it is not unlikely that he attributed to the Fourth 


Gospel an authorship which was so confidently and generally 


ascribed to it some thirty years later. Thoma’s supposition 
that the Gospel, though known to Justin and his church, was 
believed by them to be of other than apostolic origin,’ pre- 
supposing as it does that in the next generation a vast 
revolution in opinion took place among Catholics and heretics 


alike, and proceeded so silently as to leave not a trace in — 


history, appears to me in the highest degree improbable. I 
must conclude, therefore, as best satisfying on the whole the 
1 Die Evang. Justin’s, pp. 12 866. 2 P94, 


= ‘ 
ieee nt. 


IMPORTANCE OF CONCLUSION 161 


conditions of the case, not only that Justin regarded the Fourth 
Gospel as one of the historical Memoirs of Christ, but that itis 
not improbable that he believed in its Johannine authorship.! 
If the conclusion which we have now reached be correct, it 
is one of the highest importance; for the testimony of Justin, 
though not so full as we could wish, falls in so completely 
with the later view that we can hardly help believing that 
the tradition relied upon by Irenzeus and his contemporaries 
was already a tradition in the middle of the century. The 
Apologist betrays no misgiving as to the credibility and 
early origin of the “memoirs,” but treats them throughout as 
the acknowledged authorities for Christ’s life and teaching. 
They were known by the name of Gospels.2, They were read 
in the churches.2 They were the work of Apostles, or, more 
exactly, of the Apostles of Christ and their companions.* 


1 Dr Ludvig Paul has discussed the relation between the Fourth Gospel 
and Justin in three articles, Ueber die Logoslehre bet Justinus Martyr.* 
He admits the close doctrinal relation of the two writers, and reaches the 
conclusion that they were contemporary, and wrote independently of one 
another. He bases this conclusion on the apparent fact that in some few 
points, especially in the doctrine of the Spirit, the Gospel is clearer and 
more definite than Justin. The positive arguments advanced in the 
present chapter are not noticed, and I do not think my own investigation 
is in any way affected by Dr Paul’s treatise. That in some of his thoughts 
the author of the Gospel should have reached a more advanced stage, if 
that be really the case, can surprise no one who is acquainted with both 
writers. That in the face of his conclusion Dr Paul can speak of Justin as 
“the first Christian writer of his time” t indicates such an enormous differ- 
ence of literary judgment from my own that perhaps I am unable to enter 
into his arguments. I should have said that the author of the Gospel was, 
beyond all comparison, the greatest spiritual genius of his time, and for 
centuries afterwards ; and how this great, deep soul can have been utterly 
unknown amid the struggling and persecuted Christians, and why his work 
should have been ascribed to an ignorant and narrow-minded fisherman 
(for so the “critics” think of John), who died at least half a century before 
it was published, remains without any explanation. 
᾿ς 2 Apol., i. 66; Dial., το and too. 3 Apol., 1. 67. 4 Dial., 103. 


* Jahrbb. f. prot. Theol., 1886, 1890, 1891. 


+ Der erste christliche Schriftsteller seiner Zeit, 1891, p. 145. 
II 


162 JUSTIN MARTYR 


This evidence is all the stronger because it is given quite 
casually, and not in defence of some opinion which the writer 
wished to establish, and there is no reason for supposing that 
it represents any belief but that which was current at the 


time. But at that time men were still living whose memories ἡ 


could recall the closing years of the apostolic age; and it is 
therefore difficult to suppose that any of the books which 
were used by the Church as resting on apostolic authority 
had only just been published. The natural inference is that 
they had been long in circulation, and that the great mass 
of Christians saw no reason for doubting their authenticity. 
And here it may be well to remark that the fact thus arrived 
at is nothing strange or improbable. From the herculean 
efforts which have been made to get rid of it, one would 
suppose that it was something too horrible to be believed. 
But surely the state of facts which has been imagined by 
some critics is the one which would require the most un- 
questionable testimony to render it credible. That the 
Christians should have a set of documents which they regarded 
as apostolic, and on which they based their religion, and 
should incorporate with these, as undoubtedly apostolic, 
another work which no one had heard of for fifty years 
after the last apostle was in his grave, and should enter into 
a spontaneous conspiracy of silence as to its late appearance, 
and this not in one country, but in France, Italy, Greece, Asia 
Minor, Syria, Egypt, and Africa, seems to me to be a fact 
which would need a very remarkable attestation to compel us 
to accept it. But that the Christian churches should have the 
same set of Gospels in the middle of the second century, and 
at the end of the second century, is what we should expect 
antecedently to testimony; and, therefore, when testimony is 
forthcoming which points to this state of things, we see no 
occasion to apply the bludgeon to get rid of cur witness. 


CHAPTER III 


THE GOSPEL AND THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN 


WE must now endeavour to estimate some earlier evidence, 


even though, on the most favourable view, it is not of primary 
importance, for it relates directly to the First Epistle of John, 
and not to the Gospel. If, however, it can be shown that in 
all probability the two works proceeded from the same author, 
and nearly at the same time, whatever indicates an early 
date for the one must help to establish the early date of the 
other. We must therefore see whether there are indications 
of this,on which we may reasonably depend. The evidence 


--.... 


is of course disputed at every point, and it will be impossible 


to do more here than sketch the broad outlines of the con- 
troversy. Our first question relates to the identity of author- 
ship of the Gospel and Epistle; and to this subject the present 
chapter must be devoted. 

The Epistle is one of those that were universally received 
by the early Church, and it was ascribed without hesitation 
to the Apostle John. At present we have to consider only, 
whether this judgment was right in regarding the Epistle 
as the work of the Evangelist. The general opinion may be 
briefly expressed in the words of Westcott: “The writing is so 
closely connected with the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, style, 
thought, scope, that these two books cannot but be regarded 


163 


164 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE 


as works of the same author.”’! This opinion, however, not- 
withstanding the strength of the evidence, has not been 
universally accepted, and, among others, Dr Martineau has 
pronounced against it. He says that “though long held in 
suspense by the apparent equipoise of the evidence for and 
against their identity of origin, I am at last more impressed 
by a few fundamental differences of religious conception per- 
vading the two writings than by several agreements in ter- 
minology and secondary categories of thought, which point to 
some common relation to the same school.”* He believes that 
“the antitheses and syzygies—Light and Darkness, Truth 
and Falsehood, Love and Hate, Life and Death, God and 
Devil—are so akin to the elements thrown into the gnostic 
speculations, one type of which (the Docetic) the writer of 
the Epistle encounters in a passionate polemic, that they may 
well be regarded rather as the common vocabulary of theo- 
sophie criticism in a given area and age than as characteristics | 
of personal thought and taste.”? On this judgment two 
observations may be made. First, where there is anything ~ 
like equipoise of purely literary evidence, it seems only reason- 
able to allow the external evidence to decide. Dr Martineau 
apparently regards this as worthless, because it is sometimes 
mistaken. I have already explained why, in spite of its 
occasional errors, I cannot help attaching to it considerable 
weight. Secondly, I think the resemblances between the two 
works are closer than Dr Martineau indicates. They are con- 
nected not only by terms and antitheses and certain turns of 
thought, but by that all-pervading structure and spirit of 


1 The Epistles of St John, 1883, Introduction to the First Epistle, p. xxx. 
These points are fully illustrated in this introduction, to which it may be 
sufficient to refer. See, on the other side, the elaborate investigation by 
Holtzmann: Das Problem des ersten johanneischen Briefes in seinem Ver- 
hiliniss zum Evangelium, in the Jahrbiicher f. protestant. Theologie, 1881-82. 

2 Seat of Authority in Religion, p. 509. Ss Fae 


DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW 165 


language and reflection which is known as style, and which it 
is exceedingly difficult to describe and tabulate. This is so 
marked, that if the authors are different, we must suppose 
that one saturated his mind with the work of the other, so 
that he became an unconscious imitator, and, without any 
appearance of borrowing, appropriated whole phrases to which 
he supplies a different setting and application. Perhaps this 
is not impossible; but when identity of style thus expresses 
itself through an unconstrained blending of resemblance and 
difference, and when two writings, in their combined simplicity 
and depth, stand apart from all the surviving literature of the 
period, it is easier to believe in the alleged unity of author- 
ship than that one writer had so strange a double, who cast 
this one little effort of genius into the stream of time, and 
remained himself unknown. 

To set aside this evidence, the differences of religious con- 
ception must be, as Dr Martineau says, “fundamental.” 
Differences of more or less are unimportant, for a man does 
not embody the whole of his thought in a few pages. Shades 
of variation are also unimportant; for one seldom succeeds in 
expressing the whole even of a single spiritual thought at one 
time, but now one aspect and now another of a many-sided 
truth comes up for consideration, according to the object in 
view. We must also guard against attributing to these early 
writers a dogmatic fixity which could hardly exist so long as 
the mind was more interested in the spiritual and practical 
application of the truth than in its intellectual formulation. 
Still there might be differences which would be decisive. For 
instance, if a letter which professed to have been written by 
Paul in the later period of his life insisted that all Gentiles 
must be circumcised and keep the law on pain of damnation, 
we should reject it without any misgiving as an impudent 
forgery ; for such a difference from the genuine letters would 


166 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE 


be fundamental. Are there any such differences in the case 
before us? Dr Martineau indicates five “characteristic features 
in the two productions which,” he thinks, “could not co-exist 
in the same mind.” It may be sufficient for us to notice 
these, as the strongest instances that can be produced. 

(1) He says: “The idea of Repentance and Forgiveness are 
foreign to the evangelist’s conception of the relation between 
God and man, and the words never occur. In the Epistle 
(i. 8, 9) we read, ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive our- 
selves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he 
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us 
from all unrighteousness.’”+ But it is surely not sufficient to 
allege that the Gospel does not dwell on the idea of repentance 
and forgiveness; it must be shown that it is antagonistic to 
this idea. Now, what are the facts? We must observe, in 
the first place, that the Gospel is about seven times as long as 
the Epistle. No one will say that the idea of sin is foreign 
to the Evangelist ; and yet the word is found oftener in the 
Epistle than in the Gospel. The noun occurs seventeen times 
in each ; the verb three times in the Gospel, ten times in the 
Epistle. The latter, therefore, is in proportion to its bulk 
occupied with the idea of sin nine times more than the former. 
This is easily explained by its more practical and hortatory 
character ; but it removes our surprise that some aspects of 
the subject are presented which are not in the Gospel. Again, 
the words “repent” and “repentance” are as foreign to the 
one writing as to the other; and as showing the precariousness 
of this kind of argument, I may mention that the same words 
are absent from all but three of the Pauline Epistles—Romans, 
2nd Corinthians and 2nd Timothy. It is not repentance, but 
confession, that is referred to in the Epistle; and this reference 
is made only once. In the Gospel it is obstinate persistence in 


1“P. “500. 


DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW 167 


sin that keeps men from Christ, and the confession of Christ 
is tantamount to the confession of personal sin, for without that 
confession, involving faith, men will die in their sins (viii. 24). 
This is also the doctrine of the Epistle. It is on account of 
Christ’s name that men’s sins are forgiven (ii. 12), and those 
who confess Christ abide in God, and cannot sin (11. 23, iv. 2, 
I5, lil. 6,9, v. 18). Lastly, the forgiveness of sins is not absent 
from the Gospel. Christ is represented as saying to his 
Apostles, after the resurrection, “ Whose soever sins ye forgive, 
they are forgiven” (xx. 23). It may be said that the idea of 
forgiveness is involved in the words, “The wrath of God 
abideth on him ” (iii. 36), for this is equivalent to “he shall not 
be forgiven”; and to say that he who does not believe shall 
not be forgiven implies that he who believes shall be forgiven. 
I am unable, therefore, to recognize here a fundamental 
difference. 

(2) It is said that “the gospel knows nothing of an atoning 
or propitiatory efficacy in the blood of Christ. The Epistle 
says, ‘the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin’ 
(i. 7). ‘I write unto you, my little children, because your 
sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake’ (ii. 12). ‘Herein 
is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent 
his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (iv. 10).” Dr 
Martineau might have added 11. 2, where also Christ is called 
“a propitiation for our sins.” The term “propitiation” is 
peculiar to the Epistle, and this and kindred words are 
exceedingly rare in the New Testament. Still their occurrence 
can hardly prove a difference of authorship, if we may judge 
from the example of Paul, who once! speaks of Christ as 
ἱλαστήριον, but nowhere else uses this term or any of its 
cognates, Further, we must observe that it is Christ himself, 
and not his blood, that is called an fAacuds. His blood is not 


1 Rom, iii. 25. 


168 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE 


said to propitiate God, but to cleanse us; and in the Gospel 
eating his flesh and drinking his blood is represented as the 
source of eternal life (vi. 53-56). Again, the doctrine that 
Christ takes away sin, and that his death confers a benefit 
upon the world, is very distinctly laid down in the Gospel, 
and sometimes in language almost identical with that of the 
Epistle. He is called “the lamb of God that takes away the 
sin of the world” (i. 29). So in the Epistle it is said that 
“he was manifested to take away sins” (iii. 5). In the Gospel 
Christ declares that he will give his flesh “for the life of the 
world” (vi. 51); “the good shepherd lays down his life for 
the sheep,” and “I lay down my life for the sheep” (x. 11 and 
15). With these expressions we may compare the statement 
of the Epistle that “he laid down his life for us” (iii. 16). 
In the Gospel the high-priest, by virtue of his office, makes 
the true assertion that Jesus should die for the nation, and 
the Evangelist adds, “and not for the nation only, but that 
also he may gather into one the children of God who are 
scattered ” (xi. 49-52, xviii. 14). With this we may reasonably 
compare the doctrine of the Epistle that Jesus is a propitiation 
not for our sins only, but for the whole world (ii. 2). Here, 
then, I think the Gospel and the Epistle supplement rather 
than contradict one another, and I cannot see why the several 
thoughts might not co-exist in the same mind. 

(3)-“ The word Paraclete is used in the Gospel exclusively 
of the Holy Spirit; in the Epistle, of Jesus Christ.” It is 
applied to Jesus Christ in the sense of advocate, but in the 
Gospel Jesus declines this intercessory character—“In that. 
day ye shall ask in my name; and 1 say not unto you that I 
will pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loveth 
you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came 
forth from the Father (xvi. 26, 27).” At first sight we seem 
to have here a real difference of an important kind ; but there 


DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW 169 


are certain things which Dr Martineau has failed to notice 
which go far towards making the two views supplementary 
instead of contradictory. When Jesus first speaks of the 
Paraclete, he says, “I will ask the Father, and he will give 
you another Paraclete, that he may be with you for ever” 
(xiv. 16). Here two things deserve notice. First, Christ is 
here represented as an intercessor ; for it is in answer to his 
request that the Spirit is to be sent. Secondly, the Spirit 
is “another Paraclete,’ implying that Jesus was himself 
a Paraclete. But it may be said that he was to relinquish 
the office of intercessor as soon as the Spirit was sent. To 
determine this we must look more closely at the verse quoted 
above. It is at once clear that the “you” is emphatic, and 
the function of intercession is declined for the apostles solely 
on the ground that they would not require it, because their 
love and faith were sufficient in themselves to plead for 
them with the Father. Does not. this imply that for others, 
who were in a lower spiritual condition, he might and would 
intercede? But this is exactly what the Epistle teaches in 
the single passage where the question is referred to :—“ If any 
man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ 
the righteous, and he is a propitiation for our sins, and not 
for ours only, but also for the whole world” (ii. 12). Here 
it is the sinful alone who require his advocacy, those only 
who have offended the Father that need him as a propitiation. 
I may observe in passing that the propitiation has nothing 
to do with the atoning efficacy of his death. It is in the 
heavenly world that he, by virtue of his righteousness, pleads 
with God and propitiates him towards sinful man. The 
believer, conscious that through his sin he has failed to keep 
the Holy Spirit in his heart to intercede for him, may yet 
remember that he has an advocate on high, whose righteous- 
ness intercedes for the race which he represents, and that 


170 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE 


in spite of his sin he may come under the shelter of that holy — 
name to seek the grace which he has forfeited. This is ποῦ 
the place to enlarge upon or criticise the doctrine which is © 
here expressed, and I will only say that there are phases of 


religious experience to which it strongly appeals. Our point : 
at present is that it is not inconsistent with the teaching of 
the Gospel, and therefore this third objection disappears. 

(4) We are reminded that “the expectation of the Parusia, 
or near return of Christ, to wind up human history, and 
establish the theocracy, is absent from the Gospel, with its — 
attendant mythology of premonitory signs. In the Epistle we — 
read, ‘Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye have © 
heard that antichrist cometh, even now there have arisen many 
antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour’ (i. 18). — 
‘We know that, when he shall be manifested, we shall be 
like him, for we shall see him even as he is’ (iii. 2). No 
stress can be laid upon the word παρουσία, which occurs once — 
in the Epistle (ii. 28) while it is absent from the Gospel; for — 
it is absent also from Mark, Luke, and Acts, and (in its — 
special sense) from the Pauline Epistles, with the exception of 
ist Corinthians and 1st and 2nd Thessalonians. Nor are we — 
entitled to infer from the writer’s use of this word that he had — 
in his mind the whole of “its attendant mythology of pre- — 
monitory signs,” for in itself it denotes nothing but the 
presence of Christ, whether spiritual or physical. The only 
sign that is mentioned is the appearance of antichrist (ii. 18); 
but this, instead of being set forth with its mythological 
embellishments, is explained away into the coming of human — 
antichrists, who are animated by the spirit of denial (ii. 22, 
iv. 3). If this spirit is regarded as a reality, no less than the 
Spirit of God, and even as a personal principle of evil to 
whom the world is subject (iv. 2-4, v. 18-19), still he becomes 
manifest only through his human agents, and the mythological 


DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW 171 


element of his visible appearance and great battle with the 
Messiah is totally wanting. Now, the Gospel also tells us 
that “the prince of the world is coming, and has nothing in” 
Christ (xiv. 30). Here, however, the reference is to his 
coming in order to put an end to Christ’s immediate work, 
and there is no allusion to his coming as a sign of Christ’s 
return. The term “ antichrist,’ moreover, is not used; but the 
periphrasis admirably suits the idea of antichrist portrayed in 
the Epistle. Here, then, there is undoubtedly a difference of 
doctrine; but I can see nothing contradictory. It was the 
evil spirit of denial that compassed the death of Jesus; and 
an outbreak of the same evil, threatening to corrupt the 
church itself, might be taken as a sign that the prince of the 
world, feeling himself in danger, was entering on his last 
desperate struggle. 

But what of the second coming of Christ? It is mentioned 
in the Epistle as his “presence” and “manifestation,” and 
there is not a word about its mythological accompaniments. 
For anything that appears it may be wholly spiritual; for 
the one thing referred to is that we shall be like him, for we 
shall see him as he is, and such seeing is purely spiritual. 
On the other hand the Gospel, which is said to be so much 
more spiritual, recognizes the messianic function of raising the 
dead,—“ An hour is coming in which all that are in the graves 
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that did good 
unto the resurrection of life, they that practised evil unto the 
resurrection of judgment” (v. 28, 29). Dr Martineau admits 
that these words refer to the “literally dead,” and that the 
evangelist reserves “the last day” for this resurrection’; but 
if so, the writer must have believed in Christ’s second coming 
at an early date. The last chapter of the Gospel is equally 
explicit,—* If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to 


1 P. 439, note. 


172 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE 


thee?” (xxi. 22). There are also several other passages in 
which the second coming, though it may be of a spiritual 4 
kind, is distinctly alluded to:—“I am coming to you. Yet a 
little while, and the world beholds me no more, but ye behold — 
me” (xiv. 18,19). “I go away, and come to you” (xiv. 28). — 
“A little while,and ye behold me no more, and again a 
little while, and ye shall see me” (xvi. 16). “He that loveth 
me Shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him, and will 
manifest myself to him” (xiv. 21). “I will see you again, and 
your heart shall rejoice” (xvi. 22)... These expressions seem to — 
point rather to a continuous spiritual coming to believers’ — 
hearts than to any definite and external fact; but if this is 
inconsistent with the language of the Epistle, it is still more 
inconsistent with the passage in the Gospel about the resur- 
rection. The ideas with which we are dealing are not, in a 
mind like John’s, cut up and distributed into neatly labelled 
parcels, but have a largeness and vagueness which adapt them 
to varying moods; and the writer expresses them in words — 
suited to his immediate purpose, and never thinks of bringing — 
his statements together, and seeing how far they logically 
cohere. In the present instances I can see nothing but phases 
of the same mind, now rejoicing in the clearness of a constant 
spiritual vision, and again looking forward to a glory to be 
revealed. . 
(5) The evangelist retains “a remnant of eschatology in the 
phrase ‘the last day.” The language of xiv. 2-4 and xvii. 
20-24 suggests the “intended fulfilment ” of Christ’s promises 
“in each separate disciple successively called away. But the 
language is not inconsistent with an intermediate sleep of the 
dead till their number was made up and the moment of 
awakening should have arrived for all. In this case would 


In xiv. 21, “manifest” is ἐμφανίσω ἐμαυτόν. In the Epistle the ex- 
pression is ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, 111. 2. 


DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW | 173 


be realised that other word of Christ, ‘This is the will of him 
that sent me, that of all that he hath given me I should lose 
nothing, but should raise at wp at the last day’ (vi. 39). The 
Gospel, then, and the Epistle are not at variance as to the 
existence of a ‘last day. But in their account of it they 
differ: in the Epistle, it is the ‘judgment day,’ ‘ Herein is love 
made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judg- 
ment’ (iv. 17); in the Gospel, it is the resurrection day; and 
the process of judgment is expressly shifted away from that 
future day into the present, and the eternal life or death 
determined and self-pronounced already an the devotion or 
aversion of each soul to the Holy One of God. ‘He that 
believeth on him 2s not yudged: and he that believeth not 
hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on 
the name of the only-begotten Son of God’ (11. 18): ‘If any 
man hear my sayings and keep them not, I judge him not; 
for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He 
that rejecteth me and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that 
judgeth him: the word that I speak, the same shall judge him 
in the last day’ (xii. 47, 48). One would suppose that this 
last quotation, which expressly asserts that there will be a 
judgment in the last day, would upset the entire argument, 
though Dr Martineau is not impressed by this, and must, I 
suppose, have understood by the phrase the last day of 
each disciple. We must, however, survey the facts a little 
more fully, as they are very instructive. In the first place, 
the phrase “the last day” does not occur in the Epistle at all, 
whereas we find it six times in the Gospel (vi. 39, 40, 44, 
54, ΧΙ. 24, ΧΙ]. 48). The Epistle refers once to “the day of 
judgment” (iv. 17), and this is the only allusion which it 
contains to a last day, and the sole ground on which the 
above argument is based, for the “last hour” which is spoken 
of in ii. 18 evidently denotes the closing period of the world’s 


174 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE 


aoe 


pre-messianic history. Further, the verse which speaks of a | 


day of judgment evidently does not teach that the righteous 
are to be judged, but rather the contrary: when judgment 


falls upon the world, the righteous will be without fear, — 


because they are as Christ himself, and their love has been 
made perfect, so that they abide in God, and God in them. 
Love is represented as the very substance of life:—“ We have 
passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren; 
he that loves not abides in death. Everyone that hates his 
brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer has 
eternal life abiding in him” (iii. 14, 15). Consequently one 
has not to wait for eternal life; the Christian has it now :— 
“He that has the Son has the life” (v. 12). “These things 
I wrote to you that ye may know that ye have eternal life” 
(v. 13). When to these quotations we add the fact that no 
resurrection is mentioned, we might plausibly argue that the 
Epistle is far more spiritual than the Gospel, and knows 
nothing of its mythological conception of the resurrection, 
the dead all rising up out of their graves on the last day. 
But I suppose we shall not wish to apply this dreary literalism 
to a writer like the evangelist. 

Let us now turn to the Gospel, and see if its doctrine of 
judgment really differs essentially from that of the Epistle. 
We have seen that he that rejects Christ is to be judged at 
the last day. But there is another passage equally plain: 
they that practise evil are at a certain hour to come forth out 
of their tombs “unto a resurrection of judgment” (v. 29). On 
the other hand, he that believes “has eternal life, and comes 
not into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” 
(v. 24). Here we have not only the doctrine, but for the most 
part the very language of the Epistle. The words “comes not 
into judgment” are not in the Epistle, but their meaning is 
fully implied in the “boldness” which the righteous are to 


DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW 175 


have in that dreadful day. This might seem a sufficient 
reason for questioning the weight of the argument, but it is 
worth while noticing a few other passages, which show that 
there is far more contradiction between different statements of 
the Gospel itself than there is between the Gospel and the 
Epistle. Christ says that he came not to judge the world 
(iii. 17, xii. 47), and that he judges no man (viii. 15). But 
elsewhere he says, “I have many things to speak and judge 
concerning you” (viii. 26), and that the Father “has given all 
judgment to the Son” (v. 22), and “gave him authority to 
execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man” (v. 27); 
and this last passage is in immediate connection with the one 
already quoted about the resurrection. In these passages the 
judgment is future. Elsewhere it is past: “He that believes 
not has been judged already” (iii. 18). “The prince of 
this world has been judged” (xvi. 11). Yet again it is 
present: “Now is the judgment οἵ this world” (xu. 31). 
There is a similar variation in connection with the doctrine 
of the resurrection. We have seen that men were to come 
out of their tombs; and we learn further that Christ would 
personally raise the believers in him “ in the last day” 
(vi. 39, 40, 44, 54). And yet, imbedded within these very 
passages, as well as elsewhere, we are taught that eternal life 
is a present possession (111. 36, Vv. 24, vi. 47, 54). And not only 
so, but when Martha declares her conviction that her brother 
should rise in the resurrection in the last day, Jesus announces 
that he is the resurrection, and that he that believes on him 
shall live, though he were dead, and that he who lives and 
believes on him shall never die (xi. 25, 26). Surely these 
examples show that we must not bind the evangelist to a 
rigid sense for every phrase, and turn the flowing and vivid 
expressions of spiritual thought into the dead fixity of 


1 ydv κρίσις ἐστὶν κιτ.λ. 


176 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE 


intellectual dogma. We must understand such sayings in 
the spirit, and not in the letter; and the spirit, in sympathetic 
communion with the spirit of the writer, will detect hidden 
harmonies which the intellect fails to discover. 

On a survey, then, of the whole case I am unable to 
perceive fundamental differences of conception. On the 
contrary I see substantially the same vein of thought, 
and detect the same mental characteristics, with just those 
shades of variation which one may expect to meet in the 
same mind, and especially in a mind of this particular order. 
I am therefore obliged to adhere to the ancient view that the 
Gospel and the Epistle are works of the same author. 

We are on less certain ground when we attempt to deter- 
mine the relative dates of the two writings. The view has 
often been adopted that they belong closely to one another, 
and that the Epistle was published either as commendatory 
prolegomena or as a hortatory postscript to the Gospel; and 
even Bleek, who thinks that they are quite independent of 
one another, nevertheless admits that they are connected in so 
many ways that they cannot have been far apart in the time 
of their composition We have no external evidence to 
determine this question; but Lightfoot calls attention to a 
curious fact, which may have some bearing on the subject. 
“The writer” of the Muratorian Canon “detaches the First 
Epistle of St John from the Second and Third, and connects 
it with the Gospel. Either he himself, or some earlier 
authority whom he copied, would appear to have used a 
manuscript in which it occupied this position.”? May we 
suppose that the Gospel and the Epistle were originally 
published together, and became detached only when the 
Gospels were grouped into one class of writings and the 


1 EHinlett., pp. 767-8. 
2 Essays on Supernatural Religion, Ὁ. 190. 


RELATIVE DATES 177 


Epistles into another? This is not impossible; but the 
evidence is not sufficient to justify any confident conclusion. 
Lightfoot, however, who believes that his view that the 
Epistle is a postscript is “strongly confirmed” by the 
Muratorian Canon, relies upon internal evidence. The Gospel 
ends with the endorsement of the elders, to whom it has been 
dictated,—“ This is the disciple which testifieth of these 
things, and wrote these things, and we know that his 
testimony is true.” Then comes the hortatory postscript, 
“which was intended (we may suppose) to be circulated with 
the narrative. It has no opening salutation, like the two 
Epistles proper—the second and third—which bear the same 
Apostle’s name. It begins at once with a reference to the 
Gospel narrative which (on this hypothesis) has preceded... . . 
The use of the plural here? links on the opening of the 
Epistle with the close of the Gospel. The Apostle begins by 
associating with himself the elders, who have certified to the 
authorship and authenticity of the narrative. Having done 
this, he changes to the singular, and speaks in his own name— 
‘I write. The opening phrase of the Epistle, ‘That which 
was from the beginning, is explained by the opening phrase 
of the Gospel, ‘In the beginning was the Word. The whole 
Epistle is a devotional and moral application of the main 
ideas which are evolved historically in the sayings and doings 
_ of Christ recorded in the Gospel. The most perplexing 
saying in the Epistle, ‘He that came by water and by blood,’ 
illustrates and is itself illustrated by the most perplexing 
incident in the Gospel, ‘There came forth water and blood.’ 
We understand at length, why in the Gospel so much stress is 
laid on the veracity of the eye-witness just at this point, when 
we see from the Epistle what significance the writer would 
attach to the incident, as symbolizing Christ’s healing power.’’” 
1 ἐς Which we have heard,” etc. 2 Ib., pp. en 


178 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE 


I have quoted this passage at length on account of the interest 
of the suggestion which it contains; but I am afraid we can 
hardly regard it as more than the plausible conjecture of a 
learned and thoughtful man. It may, however, help to 
establish the close proximity of the two works in their date of 
publication. But there are other apparent references to the 
Gospel which have been pointed out in the Epistle. Epistle 
ii, 7-8 (compare iii. 23), where the new commandment of love 
is spoken of, reminds one of the Gospel xiii. 34, xv. 10, 12, 
Epistle v. 9, the testimony of God concerning his Son, is 
explained by the Gospel, v. 32, x. 25. EHpistle ii. 8, “The 
devil sins from the beginning,” resembles John viii. 44, the 
devil “was a murderer from the beginning.” Epistle v. 13, 
“These things I wrote to you who believe on the name of the 
Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life,” 
seems modelled upon John xx. 31, “These things have been 
written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of God, and that believing ye may have life in his name.” 
_ In ii, 12-14 the thrice-repeated γράφω refers to the Epistle, 
and ἔγραψα is most easily explained as an allusion to the 
Gospel. This last instance, if we could be sure of the 
reference of éypawa, would decide the order of composition ; 
but the rest hardly pass beyond resemblances of thought and 
expression, which might be indefinitely multiplied, and do not 
determine on which side the priority lies. Moreover we must 
not altogether lose sight of Bleek’s suggestion, that the 
substance of John’s Gospel was probably known from 
frequent oral repetition before it was committed to writing. 

In opposition to the foregoing view, Reuss! maintains the 
priority of the Epistle. The Logos-doctrine is not yet for- 
mulated. If this argument is valid, we must allow at least a 
reasonable interval between the two works; but I am inclined 

1 Geschichte der hetlgen Schriften N.T., ὃ 225. 


———ee ll .--- 


RELATIVE DATES ο΄ 179 


to think that it assumes a more complete system of thought 
than can be found in either. The Logos-doctrine, as such, 
does not appear in the Gospel beyond the Proem; and there it 
is sketched in grand outlines, which required a great deal of 
filling in with philosophical comment to bring it into the 
shape of the later dogma. Then 1 am by no means sure that 
“the Logos” of the Gospel, and “the Logos of life” of the 
Epistle, are not much more closely related than they appear 
to those who look at them only through the haze of philo- 
sophical comment. They seem to be two ways of endeavour- 
ing to express the same grand and living thought, which had 
not yet taken precise and permanent form, but seemed still 
to hesitate, whether to cast itself in a Hebrew or a Grecian 
mould. Again, the reference to an ἄλλος παράκλητος in the 
Gospel, xiv. 16, seems to be subsequent to the Epistle, ii. 1. 
If we had only a literary dependence to think of, this would 
be a strong argument; but if the writer was in the habit of 
speaking of Jesus as a παράκλητος, nothing could be more 
natural than his use of the word ἄλλος when he was applying 
the same title to the Spirit. Lastly, the less spiritual escha- 
tology seems to point to an earlier date. We have already 
dealt with this subject; and if the observations then made 
were correct, this argument too falls to the ground. Perhaps, 
then, we are safe in saying that the evidence inclines slightly 
in favour of the later date of the Epistle; but I do not think 
we should be justified in expressing a very confident opinion. 
We are more secure in affirming the probability that both 
works belong to the same period, and that the man who was 
acquainted with one was acquainted with the other. 


CHAPTER IV 
THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 


WE come now to the Epistle of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. 
The genuineness of this Epistle has been called in question, I 
think upon very insufficient grounds. It would occupy far 
too much of our time to examine the evidence in detail; and, 
as I have nothing fresh to add, I must be content with point- 
ing out the main directions which the controversy assumes, 
and referring the reader for full information to Lightfoot’s 
Essays on Supernatural Religion, and his great edition of 
the Apostolic Fathers, Part IT. 

In one of the passages in which Irenzus alludes to his 
_ acquaintance with Polycarp, he states that there is extant, a 
letter of Polycarp’s addressed to the Philippians, “from which 
those who wish, and care for their own salvation, can learn 
the character of his faith and the preaching of the truth.”! 
This is very strong external evidence; for it not only gives 
the personal belief of a pupil of Polycarp’s, but it implies that 
it was in such general circulation that there would be no 
difficulty in obtaining a copy. It is probable, therefore, that 
the church at Philippi was acquainted with it, and they must 
have known whether it was a recent production or not. That 
the churches in Asia accepted it as genuine, we may gather 
from the statement of Jerome that down to his time it was 


1 Hor,, 111, ti. 
180 


a -.- ππτοανα. .»-.-- 


GENUINENESS | : 181 


read “an Asie conventu.”' Trenzus does not indeed say 
anything which necessarily identifies the letter with that 
which has come down to us; but there is no competitor in 
the field, and there is no reason to doubt, and I believe it was 
not till recently doubted, that the extant letter is the one 
referred to. This external evidence is strongly confirmed by 
the internal. The Epistle professes to be by Polycarp, so 
that, if not his, it is a deliberate forgery. But there is no 
appearance of forgery about it. It is modest, simple, and 
devout, and suits all that we know of the character of the 
alleged author. The undeveloped condition of the doctrine, 
and the nature of the allusions to ecclesiastical organization, 
alike point to a very early date, and there is nothing which 
indicates a later time. Why, then, is its genuineness 
doubted? Mainly because it bears witness to the existence 
of the Ignatian letters and to the journey of Ignatius to his 
martyrdom in Rome.? This opens up a vast subject, which it 
is impossible for us to discuss; but I must indicate very 
briefly its bearing on the question before us. 

A number of epistles have come down to us under the name 
of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria. These letters exist 
in three forms or recensions. The first contains only three 
epistles, which have been preserved, in this form, only in a 
Syriac version. The second comprises seven epistles, the 
three of the Syriac version in an amplified form, and four 
others. Of this recension we possess the original Greek, as 
well as translations in Latin and Armenian, and fragments in 
Syriac and Coptic. This is referred to sometimes as the 
shorter Greek, sometimes as the Vossian recension, the Greek 
of six of the epistles having been published for the first time 
by Isaac Voss, in 1646. The third form includes thirteen 


1 Vw. wl. xvii. ; Lightfoot, Hssays, p. 105, note 2. 


2 ix. and xiii, 


182 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 


letters, of which one, however, is addressed to Ignatius, 
instead of professing to be written by him. Seven of the 
epistles are an enlarged edition of those embraced by the 
second recension. This largest form has been preserved in 
Greek and Latin; and the six additional epistles, having been 
added to the second form, have been translated also into 
the other languages mentioned under that head. Lightfoot 
purposes to distinguish these three collections as the short, 
middle, and long forms or recensions respectively It is 
admitted on all hands that the long form isspurious. Cureton, 
who discovered and published the ancient Syriac version, 
maintained that we were at last in possession of the genuine 
Ignatius, and in this conviction he was followed by many 
learned men. Others, however, still defended both the priority 
and the genuineness of the middle recension, and Lightfoot 
has devoted all the resources of his learning to the establish- 
ment of this position. Others, again, and especially the 
adherents of the Tiibingen school, regard the whole literature 
as spurious.® 

Now, even if it could be shown that all these letters were 
spurious, I cannot see that we should be obliged to reject the 
Epistle of Polycarp; for it might still be true that Ignatius 
was taken to Rome to be martyred, and that on the journey 
he wrote the letters to which the Epistle of Polycarp alludes. 
For some unknown reason these letters may have perished, 
and others have been forged at a later time in their place, or 
they may have been so tampered with that we can no longer 
depend upon them. I am not saying that this is likely, but 
only that it is less unlikely than that an epistle which bears 
every mark of genuineness should be a forgery; for we 
must remember that the allusions are not of a kind to identify 


1 For the above, see Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II. Vol. i. pp. 70 sqq. 
2 London, 1845. 3 See Lightfoot, 2b., p. 280 sqq. 


GENUINENESS 183 


any of the Ignatian letters which have come down to us. 
This view is confirmed by a fact which I think Lightfoot has 
proved to demonstration, that the Epistles of Polycarp and of 
Ignatius have not been written by the same hand, and that 
the former is in no way designed to support the ecclesiastical 
position maintained by the latter. There would therefore be 
no inconsistency in accepting the Epistle of Polycarp as 
conclusive evidence that there was once a genuine Ignatian 
literature, and at the same time entertaining doubts whether 
we could depend upon any of the forms in which that 
literature has reached our own time. Accordingly it is 
not necessary for us here to attempt to come to a decision 
in the controversy about the Epistles of Ignatius; for 
whatever may be the ultimate verdict, I think we may 
still retain the conviction that the Epistle of Polycarp is 
genuine. 

A fresh attack, however, proceeding upon other grounds, 
has been made by the Rev. Jos. M. Cotterill in a long article 
contained in the Journal of Philology, vol. xix., no. 38, 1891. 
The writer suggests that the Epistle was forged by Antiochus 
Paleestinensis, a writer of the early part of the seventh century, 
whose 130 Homilies recommend various moral duties, and 
enforce their lessons by quotations from the Scriptures and 
the Fathers. The Epistle and the Homilies coincide in two 
passages of some length as well as in some minor expres- 
sions; and Mr Cotterill contends that these are so related to 
one another as to prove that the indebtedness is on the side 
of the Epistle. He professes to take as his model Bishop 
Lightfoot’s investigation of a similar connection between the 
long form of the Ignatian Epistles and the Apostolical 
Constitutions. These writings exhibit frequent and minute 
coincidences, and the question is, which is dependent on the 

1 In the Apostolic Fathers, Part II. Vol. i. p. 263 sq. 


184 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 


other? Lightfoot “invites his readers to place the language 
of parallel passages with their contexts side by side, and to 
conclude that that writer whose language is again and again 
explained by the other must needs have been the copyist.”! 
This is the obvious, and indeed the only, course to pursue in 
a case of this kind; and it is clear that the evidence might 
be of every degree of strength, from zero up to a proof which 
would convince every reasonable mind. Now I think Light- 
foot has established a high probability for his thesis, that the 
Ignatian forger is dependent on the Apostolical Constitutions, 
for he not only produces obscure or inaccurate statements of 
the former which are at once explained by the parallel pas- 
sages in the latter, but he shows that in one instance the 
writer “accidentally betrays the source of his obligations,” 
by enjoining reverence for the bishop “according as the 
blessed apostles ordained for you,” and he points out an 
addition in the enumeration of church officers which suggests 
a later date. This convincing investigation, on which Mr 
Cotterill bestows extravagant praise, apparently for the 
purpose of depreciating Lightfoot’s work in general, occupies 
a little more than a page. In the long article on the Epistle 
of Polycarp there is not a single item of evidence which, to 
my mind, has anything approaching the same cogency. There 
is no accidental allusion in the Epistle to the authority of a 
certain Homily. There is no introduction of later names 
or ideas. I venture to think there is not a single passage 
which requires to be explained by the Homilies; and I believe 
the most that can be justly said is that there are a few 
instances which might be explained in the way which Mr 
Cotterill suggests if we knew that the two works were nearly 
contemporary, and were doubtful which was prior. This 
position could be established only by a minute verbal examina- 
1 Article, p. 250. 


GENUINENESS 15 


tion, on which we cannot enter here; but a few more general 
considerations may be advanced. 

First, we must notice the character of the proposition which 
is to be proved. In the case of the Ignatian letters we know 
from internal evidence that the long recension is much later 
than the time of Ignatius, and there is nothing improbable in 
the assertion that it is later than the Apostolical Constitutions. 
Accordingly we are satisfied with a degree of evidence which 
might not be considered adequate in the face of a very strong 
counter probability. But we know from the testimony of 
Ireneeus and others, that an alleged epistle of Polycarp to the 
Philippians was extant centuries before the time of Antiochus. 
The extant Epistle is the only one with which we are 
acquainted, and it contains no internal mark of being 
composed in the seventh century, or at any date subsequent to 
the time of Polycarp. We are therefore obliged to make 
several improbable suppositions. If the original Epistle was 
extant (and we know that it was extant for centuries), it 
would have been absurd to forge a new one in the hope οἵ. 
superseding it, and especially one so colourless as to answer 
no useful purpose. If, on the other hand, all interest in the 
Epistle had died out, so that it was no longer in circulation, 
then again there was no motive for the forgery, for no one 
wanted to know what Polycarp had said. In either case one 
would expect some insertions bearing on questions of the time, 
and betraying to a discerning eye a state of things much later 
than the beginning of the second century. That a forgery of 
this kind should be attempted is in a high degree im- 
probable. 

But if the forgery was undertaken, several curious points 
hadj to be attended to. Severus of Antioch (6. A.D. 513-518) 
quotes, in Syriac, two passages expressly from Polycarp’s 
Epistle; and Mr Cotterill admits that this is rather “a strong 


186 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 


fact.”1 But it is easily got over. Antiochus was acquainted 
with the writings of Severus, and cunningly inserted the 
quotations in his forgery. But his cleverness had to go a 
little farther. Eusebius also quotes a passage,” and this too is 
inserted. These insertions are so carefully made that they do 
not betray the awkwardness of the joining. The style, more- 
over, excites no suspicions; but then Mr Cotterill thinks a 
forger “can assume any style he wishes.”* Some other 
curious points had also to be attended to. Eusebius tells us 
that Polycarp “has used certain testimonies from the First 
Epistle of Peter” *; and accordingly these testimonies are duly 
interlarded, and the name of Peter as the author is judiciously 
suppressed, although the forger introduces the name of Paul. 
Again, he inserts an expression which Polycarp is said to have 
once addressed to Marcion, “the first-born of Satan”; and 
lest this should look suspicious he judiciously omits a familiar 
exclamation, “O good God, to what times hast thou kept me, 
that I should endure these things?”® The author, too, with 
great astuteness introduces two names, Crescens and Valens, 
both Latin, and both found in inscriptions at Philippi, which 
was a Roman colony.’ I suppose all this is not beyond the 
power of a clever and learned forger; but it certainly gives 
an air of extravagance to the hypothesis, and leads us to seek 
for much stronger evidence than is offered before we can 
accept it. 

Once more, it seems very improbable that, if Antiochus did 
wish to forge an epistle for no conceivable purpose, he would 
have incorporated passages from his own works, and with 
just such slight variations of reading as one might expect to 


1p age, 2 H. E., iii. 36. 3 P. 249. 
+E av, EA. δ. Tren... ae i, 

6 Iren., Ep. ad Florimuwm, in Euseb., H. E., v. 20. 

7 See Lightfoot, 11. i. p. 600. 


GENUINENESS 187 


find when the words of an author are not avowedly repro- 
duced. If he could make so much of the Epistle new, he need 
hardly have fallen back for a small part of it on what he had 
already written; and if he introduced these portions in order 
that readers might suppose that the parallel passages in the 
Homilies were quoted from them, he displayed an extra- 
ordinary refinement and skill in the forger’s art. But if the 
Epistle was written, not by Antiochus himself, but by some 
later adventurer who made use of the Homilies for his purpose, 
then why was he so modest in his borrowing, instead of 
bringing together the greater part of his material from this 
ample mine ? 

Again, in one of the two considerable passages which are 
found in both works, a decisive mark of later date is presented 
by the Homilies! Polycarp? describes the character by 
which “the presbyters” should be distinguished ; the Homily ὃ 
begins with a change of terminology, and says that “the 
priests* ought to be imitators of their chief-priest, as he also 
is of the chief priest Christ.” The idea that the Christian 
ministry was a priesthood was one which a writer of the 
seventh century would have been likely to carry back into 
the second, for he would naturally have supposed that the 
sacerdotal constitution had existed from the first. It is 
therefore extremely improbable that Antiochus deliberately 
changed “priests” into “presbyters” to suit the time of 
Polycarp, especially as Christ is referred to in the Epistle® as 
“the eternal high-priest.” 

That Antiochus does not mention Polycarp when he quotes 
him is in accordance with his almost invariable practice in 
citing ancient ecclesiastical writers. Mr Cotterill, appealing to 
Lightfoot’s remark that the Epistle is “essentially common- 


1 See the passages in the article, p. 247 sq. 2 vi. 
ΞΟ 225. 4 rods ἱερεῖς. as 


188 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 


place,” declares that “there is nothing in its contents to 
explain the lively interest in it which Antiochus must have 
felt if he had any knowledge of it at all”! It is a sufficient 
reply that the position of Polycarp in the early Church might 
well create an interest in his work far exceeding its literary 
merits, and that the two main passages which are quoted, 
relating to the character of presbyters and of deacons, are 
good and appropriate. 

On the whole, then, I can at present regard Mr Cotterill’s 
attempt only as a critical exercise. There are few theses in 
support of which it is not possible to find some arguments ; 
but I think this hypothesis is encompassed with difficulties 
which can be set aside only by a very different order of 
evidence from any which has been produced.” 

It is very easy to make light of the history of Polycarp, 
because to most people he is only a shadowy name. Never- 
theless the few facts that we know of him are of singular im- 
portance. At the time of his martyrdom he had served Christ 
for eighty-six years; and from this great age we may reasonably 
suppose that he was born in a Christian family. The date of 
his death was formerly fixed at 167 A.D.; but a very searching 
investigation has established a probability, amounting almost 
to proof, that it really took place about 155 or 156, or, more 
exactly, February 23, 155.2 He was therefore born at least as 
early as 69 or 70, and was a man in the full vigour of his 


Pale, 2. 

2 There is a long and careful reply to Mr Cotterill by Dr C. Taylor in 
the next number of the Journal of Philology (Vol. xx., No. 39, pp. 65-110). 
The article examines the arguments in considerable detail, and also throws 
much light on the relation of Hermas to Polycarp. 

3 See Lightfoot’s Essay on the “Date of the Martyrdom” in Apostolic Fathers, 
IL. i. p. 646 sqg. Also the valuable discussion in Harnack (Chronologie der 
altchristlichen Litteratur, i. p. 334 sqq.), Who notices the views of Zahn (p. 342 
sqq.), and of Schmid (p. 349 sqq.). See also the more recent investigation 
of Corssen in the Zettschr. fiir die neut. Wiss., 1902, pp. 61 sqq. 


DATE 189 


powers at the opening of the second century; and from that 
time, for more than half a century, he occupied a prominent 
position in the churches of Asia, so that, at the time of his 


martyrdom, he was known as the father of the Christians. 


We have no reason for ascribing to him any particular talent 
or learning; but he must have had those gifts of character 
and practical good sense, without which he could not have won 
such long-continued and such general respect. Of course, we 
know that in the nature of things there must have been many 
men whose lives bridged the interval from the close of the 
Apostolic age to the middle of the second century; but we are 
more impressed by our acquaintance with this one influential 
man, who knew the Apostle John, and was listened to by 
Irenzus. 

We must now return to the Epistle. It was written about 
the time of the martyrdom of Ignatius, before tidings of the 
closing scene had reached Asia. The martyrdom took place 
possibly as late as 118, perhaps as early as 110, and within 
these limits the Epistle must have been written At the 
beginning of chapter vii. are the words, Πᾶς yap, ὃς ἂν μὴ 
ὁμολογῇ Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν. 
These words at once remind us of 1 John iv. 2-3, with 
perhaps a blending of ii. 22, and possibly of the Second 
Epistle, 7, A phrase which presently follows, ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου 
ἐστίν, occurs in 1 John iii. 8, and the reference to τὸ μαρτύριον 
τοῦ σταυροῦ may have been suggested by the incident related 
in John xix. 3484. Those, however, who love hasty judgments 
can very easily dispose of this apparent evidence. The Epistle 
of John is not mentioned; the words are not given as a 


’ 1 Harnack has examined the question with marked caution, and has 


reached the conclusion that the letters are genuine, and were composed in 


_ the last years of Trajan (110-117), or perhaps some years later (117-125). 


Chron., p. 406. 
2 See Lightfoot’s note. 


190 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 


quotation; they are not the same as the words in the Epistle ; | 
and they are followed by further statements of a similar kind 
which no one supposes to be a quotation :—“ Whosoever does — 
not confess the testimony of the cross, is from the devil; and 
whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own desires, 
and says there is neither resurrection nor judgment, he is first- 
born of Satan.” If, then, we had nothing to guide our judg- 
ment but a comparison of the two passages, we might think it 
very doubtful whether they were not the accidental utterances 
of similar phrases by members of the same school, or whether 
the statement in John was not borrowed from Polycarp. But 
as soon as we take a more extended view, other considerations 
begin to prevail. In the first place, all the evidence which we 
have hitherto noticed leads us to suppose that the Epistle of 
John (being by the same author as the Gospel) was earlier 
than the Epistle of Polycarp; and, accordingly, this apparent 
quotation is simply confirmatory of what we have legitimately 
anticipated, and proves that we have not been upon the wrong 
track. In the second place, the Epistle contains a large number 
of similar quotations (at least thirty) from a great many books 
of the New Testament, especially from the First Epistle of Peter, 
and these also are habitually introduced without the name of 
the author, without any sign of quotation, with frequent verbal 
inaccuracy, and mixed up with Polycarp’s own reflections and 
expansions. Paul is the only writer who is named, and words 
cited from the Gospels are ascribed to Christ.1. We learn from 
these facts that if Polycarp cited the Epistle of John, he would 
probably cite it in some such manner as we actually find. The 
reasonable inference from these considerations surely is that 
the sentence quoted above is really a citation from the First 
Epistle of John. Of course, I do not assert that the other 
suppositions cannot possibly be true; I only say that the 


1 The first two chapters furnish excellent examples. 


GENERAL REFLECTIONS 191 


evidence leads naturally and fairly to the conclusion which 
has been stated; and I must repeat what one often has 
occasion to observe, that evidence does not become worthless 
because it is proved that it is not demonstrative. 

It is perhaps worth while pointing out a possible allusion to 
the Fourth Gospel, to which I am not aware that attention has 
been called before. In ὃν. are the words καθὼς ὑπέσχετο ἡμῖν 
ἐγεῖραι ἡμᾶς ἐκ νεκρῶν, and that if we fulfil our citizenship in a 
manner worthy of him we shall also reign with him, εἴγε 
πιστεύομεν. 1 do not remember that this promise is contained 
anywhere but in John vi. 40; πιστεύων εἰς αυτὸν .... ἀναστήσω 
αὐτὸν ἐγὼ ἐν TH ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. The meaning is precisely the 
same;.and as Polycarp is not avowedly quoting, the substi- 
tution of a synonymous and more common phrase, one, more- 
over, which is not unknown to the Fourth Gospel, is very 
natural. If this is not a direct reference to the Gospel, it at 
all events shows that we are within the circle of Johannine 
ideas. The promise that we shall reign with Christ is con- 
tained in substance in Rev. 111. 21; but the exact words, καὶ 
συμβθασιλεύσομεν, are in 2 Timothy ii. 12, as part of a πιστὸς 
Adyos. Compare 1 John ii. 25, “This is the promise which 
he himself promised us, the eternal life.” 2 

Before leaving Polycarp I must venture on some general 
reflections. Setting all testimony aside, it is a matter of great 
importance to know that this distinguished man was a friend 
of the Apostle John’s; that he lived till Irenzus was old 
enough to attend and to remember his courses of instruction ; 
that the period between the middle life of the teacher and 
that of the pupil produced such men as Melito, Bishop of 
Sardis, and Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, who 
were both of them voluminous theological writers. We are 

1 Cf. 44, 54. 


2 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν, τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. 


192 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 


thus enabled to escape from a world of ghosts, ac place 
ourselves among real men of flesh and blood, who by a short 
and unbroken succession connect the apostolic age with the 
time when the happy survival of its literature supplies us 
with complete information. Now, if the Fourth Gospel 
appeared for the first time towards the close of Polycarp’s 
life, is it probable that he and his contemporaries would have 
received it without any misgiving as a genuine work of the 
Apostle’s? If they had misgivings, is it likely that these 
misgivings would have left no trace in the subsequent 
literature? If they accepted it without doubt, would they 
- not at least have had to pass some sort of literary judgment 
upon it, and explain why, in spite of its appearing half a 
century too late, they still believed it to be John’s, and 
would it not have become impossible for their pupils to 
suppose that it had been published by John himself? If, to 
escape from these difficulties, we resort to the extravagant — 
hypothesis that it appeared for the first time after the death 
of Polycarp, then is it probable that Irenzus could suppose 
‘that a book which had been never heard of when he was a 
youth had been in current use throughout the whole of the 
century? Further, I think we may safely say that we know 
that the book was not written by any of the eminent men 
of the second century, whose names have been preserved ; 
certainly none whose works have survived were capable of 
writing it. Is it then likely that there lived and died among 
them, entirely unknown, a man who throughout the century 
had absolutely no competitor in the wealth, originality, and 
depth of his genius, and this at a time when the struggling 
Church required all her ablest men to come to the front? 
And if an author possessing this spiritual stature had issued — 
his anonymous book, is it credible that he would have allowed ~ 
it to be received and circulated as the work of the Apostle, and 


GENERAL REFLECTIONS 193 


thus have practised an enormous deception on the Church ? 
I know that critics think that no stupidity is too foolish, no 
forgery too criminal, for an early Christian; but for my part 
I cannot believe in these moral monstrosities. We might 
escape from these latter difficulties by supposing that our 
author perished in his youth, that even his intimate friends 
had not divined that one of the immortals was among them, 
and that he himself had no anticipation of the place which his 
work was to occupy in the world of literature, of religion, and 
of thought. This is a possible, though hardly a probable, 
supposition; but the other difficulties remain without relief. 


13 


CHAPTER V 
PAPIAS AND THE PRESBYTER JOHN 


WE pass on to the consideration of Papias, in connection 
with whom some difficult questions have arisen, which, owing 
to their immediate bearing on our subject, require discussion, 
although the total amount of evidence ultimately obtained 
may be small. Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia,} 
and is described by Irenzus as “a hearer of John and 
companion of Polycarp.’* There can be no doubt that by 
John, Irenzeus meant the Apostle; but Eusebius, who has 
been followed by many modern writers, supposed that he 
confused the Apostle with a certain “Presbyter John” 
mentioned by Papias.2 We shall have to inquire presently 
into the evidence for the existence of this Presbyter; mean- 
while we may observe that if the traditional view be correct 
in assigning a residence in Asia Minor to the Apostle, there is 
no reason why Papias should not have heard him at the same 
_ time as his companion Polycarp. It is natural to suppose that 
these two friends were about the same age; and we may 
perhaps infer, from the fact that Eusebius places his account 
of Papias a good deal earlier than his narrative of the 


1 Euseb., H. E., iii. 36. 
2 y.xxxili.4. Later statements are probably not independent of Irenzus. 
See them referred to by Harnack, Chronologie, i. p. 664. 
3 See H. E., iii. 39. 
194 


DATE | 195 


martyrdom of Polycarp, that the former died some time before 
the latter. The scanty facts which have come down to us 
suggest that his life may have extended from about 70! to 
about 140 a.p.; but the limits at either end cannot be 
determined with any precision. It was formerly believed, 
from a notice in the Chronicon Paschale, that he suffered 
martyrdom at Pergamus in 164; but Lightfoot has shown 
convincingly that Papias is an error for Papylus, an otherwise 
unknown man, whose martyrdom is recorded in the passage 
of Eusebius? on which the statement in the Chronicle is 
evidently based.2 We are accordingly once more in contact 
with an immediate, or, at all events, a near successor 
of the apostolic age; and it is this circumstance which has 
given such high importance to the few surviving fragments of 
his literary work. His Phrygian name suggests that he was 
of Gentile origin, though this is not certain; and his having 
been a hearer of John, whether the Apostle or the Presbyter, 
proves that he was either born of Christian parents or 
converted to Christianity in early life. 

He was the author of a treatise in five books, entitled, 
Aoyiwy κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις (or ἐξηγήσεις). ΑΒ λογίων 15 
without an article, I think this title implies that the object 


1 Harnack says that his birth can hardly be later than about 80. 
Chronologie, i. p. 357 86. 

Ys Set Oe a τῇ. 3 Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 147-9. 

4 Tren., v. xxxiii. 4. Euseb., H. £., ili. 39, which is the general reference 
for what follows, unless otherwise stated. Professor Bacon, pointing out 
the “deplorable” error of “critics such as Lightfoot, Hilgenfeldt [sic] and 
Schmiedel,” in giving the title of the work as ἐξήγησις, says “ Eusebius is 
explicit : ἐπιγέγραπται λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις" (The Hibbert Journal, April 
1903, p. 512, note 2). Yet Heinichen reads ἐξηγήσεως, without any 
intimation that there is a different reading; and Schwartz, 1903, retains 
this reading, which is that of all the MSS. but one, which reads ἐξηγήσεις. 
The singular is supported, not only by Jerome, who is referred to by Dr 
Bacon, but by Rufinus and the Syriac. There is of course a difficulty ip 
the genitive ; but it might depend on συγγράμματα (or βιβλία) πέντε. 


196 PAPIAS 


of the work was to give an explanation of selected utterances 
of Christ’s; and as we know that Papias was acquainted with 
evangelical writings by Matthew and Mark, we need have 
little doubt that these oracles were in the Gospels (whatever 
they may have been) which were used at that time in the 
Asiatic churches. Whether our’ author intended simply to 
edify his readers, or to expose the false exegesis of the Gnostics, 
cannot be determined. Eusebius forms a very low judgment 
of his intellectual qualities, and thinks that his chiliastie and 
material notions of Christ’s kingdom arose from his inability 
to understand figurative language: σφόδρα yap τοι σμικρὸς Ov 
τὸν νοῦν, ὡς ἃν ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων τεκμῃράμενον εἰπεῖν, φαίνεται. 
The interpretations were accompanied by narratives received 
through oral communication, containing, among other things, 
‘certain strange parables of the Saviour, and instructions of 
his, and some other things more fabulous.” As to the date of 
the work, we may judge from the way in which Papias refers 
to his sources that it was produced at an advanced period of 
his life, and contained reminiscences which went back through 
many years. This conclusion is confirmed by one of the 
fragments contained in the Codex Baroccianus 142, which 
were probably extracted from the lost Χριστιανικὴ ᾿Ἰστορία of 
Philip of Side, about 430 A.D., and have been published in the 
Texte ὧν. Untersuchungen.! The fragment alluded to, which 
is expressly referred to Papias, informs us that those raised 
from the dead by Christ lived till the time of Hadrian. Ἕως 
᾿Αδριανοῦ naturally denotes the reign of Hadrian, and it there- 
fore seems proved that the work was written after 117, the 
year of Hadrian’s accession, but I think not necessarily after 
his death, 138 A.D. It may, however, have been published in 
the reign of Antoninus Pius. The story may very likely have 
been taken from the Apology of Quadratus, addressed to the 
1 v. 2, 1889. 


DATE . 197 


Emperor Hadrian This apologist says that some of those 
who were healed, and raised from the dead by Christ, 
survived “to our own times.”? This does not involve the 
chronological improbability of survival till the reign of 
Hadrian. It implies, on the contrary, that none were known 
to be still living when the Apology was written; but Papias, 
with his small intelligence, may easily have misunderstood the 
passage. These evidences of date are not very certain; but 
_I think we should hardly be safe in placing the work of 
Papias much earlier than 140, and it may possibly be as late 
as 150.2 We must remember, however, that with this com- 
paratively late date he must have written in his extreme old 
age, and that his own memory would reach as far back as the 
end of the first century, and possibly farther still. 

We proceed next to the sources of Papias’ work, a con- 
sideration of which involves much more serious and difficult 
questions. Our information is chiefly contained in an extract 
from the preface, which has been preserved by Eusebius,‘ and 


1 Or perhaps to Antoninus Pius: see Texts and Studies, Vol. i. No. 1, 
“The Apology of Aristides,” by J. R. Harris, 1891, p. 10 sqq. The probable 
derivation of the story from Quadratus is pointed out by Harnack, l.c., note, 
p. 176. 

2 Quoted by Euseb., ἢ. £., iv. 3. 

3 Harnack thinks we cannot fix it more exactly than 140 (145) to about 
160. Chronologie, i. p. 357. 

4 H. E., iii. 30.---Οὐκ ὀκνήσω δέ σοι καὶ ὅσα ποτὲ παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καλῶς 
ἔμαθον καὶ καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσα, συγκατατάξαι ταῖς ἑρμηνείαις, διαβεβαιούμενος ὑπὲρ 
αὐτῶν ἀλήθειαν. Οὐ γὰρ τοῖς τὰ πολλὰ λέγουσιν ἔχαιρον, ὥσπερ οἱ πολλοί, ἀλλὰ 
᾿ τοῖς τἀληθῆ διδάσκουσιν᾽ οὐ δὲ τοῖς τὰς ἀλλοτρίας ἐντολὰς μνημονεύουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς 
τὰς παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου τῇ πίστει δεδομένας, καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς παραγινομένας τῆς ἀληθεία-. 
Εἰ δέ που καὶ παρηκολουθηκώς τις τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἔλθοι, τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων 
ἀνέκρινον λόγους" τί ᾿Ανδρέας, ἢ τί Πέτρος εἶπεν, ἢ τί Φίλιππος, ἢ τί Θωμᾶς, ἢ 
Ἰάκωβος, ἢ τί ᾿Ιωάννης, ἢ Ματθαῖος, 4 τίς ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν, ἅ τε 
᾿Αριστίων, καὶ ὃ πρεσβύτερος ᾿Ιωάννης οἱ τοῦ κυρίου μαθηταὶ ἢ λέγουσιν. Οὐ γὰρ 
τὰ ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν με ὠφελεῖν ὑπελάμβανον, ὅσον τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς 


καὶ μενούσης“. 


* It matters little to our present inquiry whether we retain the words 
οἱ τοῦ κυρίου μαθηταί or not. Professor Bacon says they are “wanting in 


198 PAPIAS 


runs as follows:—“But I will not hesitate to put down for 
thee along with the interpretations as many things also as I 
once learned well from the elders, and remembered well, 
strongly confirming the truth about them For I used not 
to take pleasure in those who say a great deal, as most men 
do, but in those who teach the truth; and not in those who 
mention the foreign commandments, but in those [who 
mention] the [commandments] given from the Lord to the 
faith, and coming from the truth itself. And also if anyone 
came on any occasion who had been a follower of the elders, 
I used to inquire into the discourses of the elders, what 
Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, 


1 By which, if we are to judge from the order of the clauses in the Greek, 
I think Papias means that he intended to confirm the truth of his inter- 


pretations by relating what he had learned from the men of an older 
generation. 


some of the MSS.” (Hibbert Journal, April 1903, p. 516). Schwartz, the 
latest editor, gives no intimation of this, and only refers to the omission of 
the article of. The reading is supported by Jerome, and Rufinus partly 
favours it by the strange reading cetertque discipuli. The Syriac translation 
omits it, and Nicephorus Callisti ignores it (see Mommsen, referring to 
Preuschen, in an article “ Papianisches” in the Zevtsch. fiir die neutest. Wiss., 
1902, pp. 156 sqq.). Different emendations of the text have been suggested ; 
but they are at best plausible conjectures. Among others Mommsen would 
expunge the words, as irreconcilable with Eusebius’s statement (in the 
_ article referred to). The Roman Martyrology represents Papias as testifying 
that Aristion was one of the seventy-two disciples. Under February 22 
Papias, “sancti Joannis Senioris auditor, Polycarpi autem sodalis,” is 
commemorated, and then follows the statement, “Salaminze in Cypro 
sancti Aristionis, qui (ut idem Papias testatur) fuit unus de Septuaginta- 
duvbus Christi discipulis” [Ed. Rome momtl. p. 27]. If this is more than 
a mere inference from the statement in the preface, the reading is probably 
genuine. We should notice that the Martyrology follows Eusebius in 
making Papias a hearer of the “elder John.” I think Dr Abbott is hardly 
correct in saying that Eusebius “regards Aristion as living at the time 
when Papias wrote” (Hncycl. Brbl., column 1815). This is surely more 
than is necessarily implied by the words αὐτήκοον éavrdy φησὶ γενέσθαι, which 
would be satisfied if Papias had been at any time a hearer of Aristion and 
the Presbyter John. 


HIS PREFACE 199 


or James, or what John or Matthew, or any other of the 
disciples of the Lord, and [I used to inquire into the things] 
which Aristion and the presbyter [or elder] John, the disciples 
of the Lord, say: for I did not suppose that the things out of 
the books were of as much use to me as the things from a 
living and abiding voice.” 

The latter part of this extract, owing to the change from 
. the past to the present tense,! has been taken to mean, that 
Papias inquired what Andrew and the rest had said, and what 
Aristion and the Presbyter John were still saying. This does 
not seem a probable interpretation, for it is evident that the 
inquiries were carried on whenever Papias had an opportunity, 
and must have lasted into a time when it would be unreason- 
able to suppose that any immediate disciples of Christ were 
still surviving. I think also that ἃ λέγουσιν must refer to the 
time of writing, and not to the time of inquiry. Lightfoot, 
owing to the chronological difficulty, thinks “the tense should 
probably be regarded as an historic present, introduced for 
the sake of variety.”2 There are three objections to this: 
first, the tenses are used very carefully throughout the 
passage; secondly, there is not only a change of tense, but 
also a change of ἤ into τε and of ri into ἅ; and thirdly, the 
reference to what disciples said, naturally ends with “any 
other of the disciples of the Lord”; and therefore, as Aristion 
and John are also disciples of the Lord, there must be an 
intentional antithesis between “said” and “say.” Dr Salmon 
thinks there is an anacoluthon, and that Papias did not intend 
d to depend on ἀνέκρινον. He believes “the meaning, however 
_ ill expressed, to be that he learned, by inquiry from others, 
things that Andrew, Peter, and others had said, and also 
stored up in his memory things that Aristion and John said 


1 Elev, λέγουσιν. 
2 Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 150, note 3. 


200 PAPIAS 


in his own hearing.”! To this interpretation there are three 
strong objections: it does not explain the. present tense; 
Papias has already mentioned, in the earlier part of the 
passage, the elders whom he himself heard, and has passed 
from them to another class, those who had been followers of 
the elders; and, thirdly, the extracts which have been pre- 
served from Papias do not justify us im ascribing to him 
so very faulty an expression of his meaning. I venture to 
suggest that a strict attention to the structure of the passage 
conducts us to a meaning different from any that has been 
hitherto proposed, at least so far as 1 am aware. Aéyovow 
must, I think, refer to the time when Papias was writing, that 
is to a time long after the death of Aristion and the Presbyter 
John. How, then, could they speak when they were already 
dead? There can be only one answer,—in books. There are 
two suppositions, under either of which the use of the word 
would be perfectly regular. Either they themselves may 
have written books, containing their own reminiscences or 
explanations, or others may have written books which pro- 
fessed to contain sayings of theirs. If we assume either of 
these, the distinction between the last pair of the disciples 
of the Lord and all the rest becomes intelligible. Papias 
inquired after unwritten sayings of the first set; but in the 
case of the two last, he inquired about written sayings, in 
regard to which he may have had some doubts either of their 
meaning or of their authenticity. Again, we obtain at last a 
reasonable sense for “the books.” It has often been assumed 
that these must be writings afterwards comprised in the New 
Testament Canon. But it seems absurd to suppose that 
Papias, however diminutive in intelligence, could think that 
he would get more benefit from second-hand reports of what 


the Apostles had said than from what the Apostles had 


1 Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv., p. 186A. 


HIS PREFACE 201 


actually written. Now Matthew is one of the names men- 
tioned, and we know that Papias believed that he had a work 
by Matthew; and we are therefore compelled to reject an 
interpretation which has nothing to recommend it except its 
tendency to show that the Gospels were not held in much 
esteem in the first half of the second century. But are we, 
then, to understand by the books, works containing a false 
exegesis, perhaps the writings of Basilides and Valentinus, as 
Lightfoot supposes?! This view does not appear to me to 
relieve the difficulties of the passage. “The books” are not 
disparaged except relatively. It is clearly implied that they 
were useful, though not so useful as the words of a living 
᾿ voice. And again, “the books” standing without any further 
description must surely be books immediately connected in 
some way with the men who have just been named. If we 
may limit the reference to Aristion and John, then all becomes 
plain. There was no need to apologise for asking what was 
said by apostles to their followers. No matter what the 
Apostles had written, any authentic additions to their teach- 
ing would be welcome. But if there were books professing to 
contain sayings of Aristion and John, Papias might very well 
allege as a reason for inquiring into these sayings that he 
did not feel so much confidence in the books as in oral reports. 
He would, however, hardly feel this want of confidence if he 
believed that the books were written by the men themselves; 
and he would probably have said “their books” instead of 
“the books.” If, therefore, we are on the right track at all, it 
seems likely that the books were by some other authors, and 
may have borne some such titles as “ Narratives of Aristion,” 
“Traditions of the Presbyter John.”? If they were anony- 


1 Essays, p. 160 sq. 
2 That this is not an improbable title for a work appears from a 
reference by Clement of Alexandria*to “the traditions” of Matthias :— 


202 PAPIAS 


mous, there would be the more reason for asking competent 
witnesses about their contents; and if they were pretty well 
known when Papias wrote, the reference before us would be 
sufficient. 

There are some points in Eusebius’ account which seem to 
me to confirm this interpretation. We can at once understand 
why Papias derived so many of his traditions from these men. 
This would of course be adequately explained if he had been 
one of their disciples; but I cannot find any proof of this. 
Eusebius, it is true, infers from the passage in the preface that 
Treneus had made a mistake in representing Papias as a 
hearer of the Apostle John, and affirms that Papias’ own 
statement is that he had received the words of the apostles 
from those who had been their followers, but that he had 
been himself a hearer of Aristion and the Presbyter John. 
This, however, is certainly not alleged in the words which 
Kusebius quotes. The historian, like Dr Salmon, may have 
thought there was an anacoluthon; but we are at liberty to 
interpret the passage for ourselves. That Eusebius was not 
quite sure of his interpretation appears from the words which 
he adds,—“ At all events frequently mentioning them by 
name, he gives their traditions in his writings.”! This he 
would naturally do if he made use of books containing their 
traditions. As Eusebius fails to quote anything more explicit, 
the just inference is that he did not remember any passage in 
which Papias said expressly that he had been a hearer of these 
men; and therefore his whole argument against the statement 
of Irenzus falls to the ground. That statement, whatever 
may be its value, must have been made on independent infor- 
mation ; for no one could infer from the preface that Papias had 


Ταύτης [τῆς γνώσεως] δὲ ἀρχὴ τὸ θαυμάσαι τὰ πράγματα, ὧς Πλάτων ἐν Θεαιτήτῳ 
λέγει" καὶ Ματθίας ἐν ταῖς Παραδόσεσι παραινῶν, Θαύμασον τὰ παρόντα. Δ γΟΉν., 
11, 9; p. 452 sg. Potter. 


1 ᾿Ονομαστὶ γοῦν K.T.A. 


HIS PREFACE 3 203 


been a hearer of the Apostle John. The quotation leads us no 
farther than this, that he had himself listened to certain 
unnamed elders, and that he had second-hand information 
about several apostles,as well as about Aristion and the 
Presbyter John, whoever they may have been. My inference 
from the mode of statement is that he had also books profess- 
ing to contain traditions of the last two. 

Another fact pointing in the same direction is the following. 
Eusebius, having related a narrative received from the 
daughters of Philip, who had settled in Hierapolis, adds,— 
“But the same author has communicated also other things 
that came to him as from unwritten tradition,” ὁ among which 
he refers to his notions of the millennium. He then proceeds 
thus,—“ But he also commits to his own writing? other 
narratives of the sayings of the Lord of the aforesaid Aristion, 
and traditions of the Presbyter John.” “ His own writing” 
suggests somebody else’s writing; and the “unwritten tradi- 
tion” suggests written tradition. Although Eusebius does not 
mention any books, it seems from these expressions as though 
he perceived that Papias had used written as well as un- 
written sources; and, if so, the context proves that these were 
connected with Aristion and the Presbyter John. 

Lastly, the account of the origin of Mark’s Gospel, which is 
given on the authority of “the presbyter” (presumably John), 
has all the appearance of being an exact quotation from some 
document. It occupies fully eight lines, and is throughout in 
the direct construction. It begins with Μάρκος μέν, as though 
it were part of a longer statement. In the middle of the 
passage we have ws ἔφην, which would be perfectly natural in 
a book devoted to sayings or traditions of the Presbyter John, | 
but would be less in place in a casual reminiscence of the 
substance of his teaching. Papias’ introductory words, καὶ 


1 ὡς ἐκ παραδόσεως ἂγράφου. 2 τῇ ἰδίᾳ γραφῇ. 


204 PAPIAS 


τοῦτο ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε, favour the same conclusion. If he 
was recording what he once heard, we should expect “he said,” 
not “he used to say.” If he wished to communicate what the 
Presbyter was in the habit of teaching, we should look for the 
indirect construction; for we can hardly suppose that John 
was in the habit of repeating exactly these eight lines, with 
“as I said” in the proper place, like some guide who repeats 
his words by rote, nor can Papias have really meant this. But 
everything is explained if we suppose that this account was 
contained in “Traditions of the Presbyter John”; that Papias 
read it there; that when he met with some one who had 
followed the Presbyter, he questioned him about it; and that 
this follower replied, “Oh, yes, it is quite true, I have often 
heard him saying that.” Papias would then quite naturally 
write, “the Presbyter used to say this,” and proceed to quote 
verbatim from the “ traditions.” 

The above is only an hypothesis, but it is one which has 
been forced upon us by the grammatical structure of Papias’ 
words, and which serves to explain all the phenomena but one. 
This one is the failure of Eusebius to mention the existence of 
the supposed books. But he may not have known anything 
about them. Aristion and Presbyter John are very obscure 
men, and Papias may have incorporated in his own work 
everything of interest relating to them, so that the writings in 
question may soon have fallen into oblivion. But notwith- 
standing the silence of Eusebius, we have seen that he betrays 
some knowledge that Papias was not without written sources, 
and his contempt for this author’s want of intelligence may 
have prevented him from looking carefully into the subject. 
I think, therefore, that the hypothesis is at least worthy of 
consideration.! 


ΤΊ observe that Harnack thinks the reference to the “narratives” of 
Aristion points to some written source, but he does not pursue the 


THE PRESBYTER JOHN > 205 


The foregoing remarks have helped to prove that the 
Presbyter John was a real man, and distinct from the Apostle 
of the same name. This will be the most convenient place to 
pursue the subject, and consider the hypotheses which have 
grown out of the allusions of Papias. Dr Salmon thinks that 
“the elder John” is none other than the Apostle, the only 
evidence of his separate existence being the fact “that Papias 
in his preface names John twice over,’ which he may have 
done out of “mere slovenliness of composition,” and he says, 
“it may be assumed that none of the subsequent passages 
in that [Papias’] work where John is mentioned speaks 
decisively on the present question, else Eusebius would have 
quoted 10. 1 cannot but regard this as unreasonable scepti- 
cism. The passage in Papias does not betray the required 
slovenliness. Eusebius shows no doubt that there were two 
men, and his only question is, of which of them was Papias 
the hearer? It must have been pretty clear that the quoted 
traditions of the Presbyter were not traditions of the Apostle, 
And the silence of history respecting this second John is no 
more strange than its silence about Aristion.2 Many men are 
prominent during their lifetime who soon pass out of public 
memory. The epithet “the elder” might seem to determine 
the question ; but Dr Salmon contends that “it can scarcely 
mean only that he held the office of presbyter in the Church; 
for then Papias would not have used the definite article as he 
does, not only here in the preface, but afterwards, when he 
subject (Die Chron. der altchr. Lit., i. p. 698, note 1). The above hypo- 
thesis was framed before the appearance of Harnack’s work. 


1 See his Introduction to the New Testament, p. 330 sqq., and his article 
on Joannes Presbyter in the Dectionary of Christian Biography, iii. p. 
398 899. 

2 The Roman Martyrology, as we have already seen, states on the authority 
of Papias that Aristion was one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, and 
commemorates his martyrdom at Salamis in Cyprus on the 22nd of 
February. 


206 PAPIAS 


cites a saying of this John with the formula, ‘This also the 
elder said.’” Accordingly, he thinks the word is used in the 
same sense as in the previous part of the passage, to denote 
“the venerated heads of the Church in a former generation.” 
It is an objection to this view that in the wider sense the title 
would be as applicable to Aristion as to John. It was natural 
that this John should be habitually referred to as the Presbyter 
John to distinguish him from the Apostle; and in citing 
traditions of the Presbyter John, especially if these traditions 
were contained in a book bearing that title, Papias might 
readily adopt the formula, “the Presbyter said.” I therefore 
agree with Lightfoot that the word here has its official sense ?; 
and if so, the existence of two Johns is established. 


The existence of the Presbyter John being granted, a curious 


and difficult question arises. Eusebius thought the elder 
might be the author of the Apocalypse; and in modern times 
it has been suggested that the Apostle John was never in Asia 
Minor at all, and that the John who occupied such a dis- 


tinguished position in the Asiatic churches was none other — 


than the Presbyter, who was mistaken for the Apostle by a later 
generation. Among advocates of this view it may be sufficient 
to mention Keim,? Holtzmann,* and Scholten,’ and, with a slight 
qualification, Harnack, who thinks that the Apostle probably 


ee ees a ee ee «-ῸΦφ-« 


visited and was known in Asia, though he is not the John οὗ 


Asiatic tradition.® Harnack puts forward his hypothesis, 


not as completely established, but as the one beset with fewest — 


difficulties.’ If this hypothesis could be established, I cannot 


1 Introduction, p. 331. 2 Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 146. 

3 Geschichte Jesu, i. p. 161 sqq., 1867. 

+ In Schenkel’s Bibel-Lex., 1871, and Einl. in das N.T., p. 454 sqq., 1885. 
5 Der Apostel Johannes in Kleinasien, 1872. 

6 Chronologie, p. 678, especially note 3. 

7 A somewhat similar view is defended by Aall, Gesch. der Logosidee in 


der christ. Lit., pp. 56 sqq. A fuller notice of the literature may be seen ~ 


in Bousset (Meyer, Offenb., pp. 35 sq.), who defends the same hypothesis. 


JOHN IN ASIA 207 


see that the Johannine question would be much relieved, for 
the Presbyter, like the Apostle, was a disciple of the Lord, and 
we should simply have to transfer to him all the evidence that 
we have been accustomed to associate with the Apostle, and 
should, moreover, be burdened with some added difficulties. 
Harnack endeavours to set this aside by maintaining that 
Papias distinguishes two groups of “disciples of the Lord,” the 
one representing those who were such in the strict sense, the 
other implying a more remote relation, and being applicable to 
the Palestinian Christians. He thinks that the Presbyter 
belonged to this second group, though it is possible that, when 
he was a child, he may have seen Jesus.! I doubt, however, 
whether the same phrase can be used in these different senses 
in two consecutive lines; and a sufficient reason for the 
separate mention of the Presbyter and Aristion is supplied 
by the change of tense, and the special use which was made 
of them. We must, however, briefly review the evidence on 
each side. We will notice first the evidence in support of the 
ecclesiastical tradition. 

Our principal witness is Ireneus. In defending his view 
that Jesus was over forty years of age, he says, “ All the elders 
who in Asia associated with John the disciple of the Lord 
testify that John had delivered these things; for he remained 
with them till the times of Trajan.2 But some of them saw 
not only John, but also other apostles.”? Although the term 
apostles is not necessarily limited to the twelve, there can be 
no reasonable doubt that Irenzus refers to the twelve in this 
passage; for the appeal is obviously to those who were 
personally acquainted with Jesus. It is only natural that 
John should be frequently referred to as “the disciple of the 


1 Chronol., p. 660 sq. 2 So far in Greek. 
3 Her., τι. xxii. 5. The statement that John lived till the time of 
Trajan is repeated in III. ili. 4. 


208 PAPIAS 


Lord,” for in the Fourth Gospel the word apostle is used only 
once; and then in quite a general sense, whereas “disciple” is 
of constant occurrence. We may add that “John,” if not 
distinguished from the Apostle, must denote the Apostle, just 
as certainly as Shakespeare denotes the poet. In another 
passage Irenzeus says that “John the disciple of the Lord, who 
also leaned upon his breast, himself too published the Gospel, 
while he was living in Ephesus of Asia.”? Farther on he 
speaks of Polycarp as “not only taught by apostles, and 
having associated with many who had seen Christ, but also 
appointed bishop by apostles in Asia, in the church at 
Smyrna.” He “taught the things which he had learnt from 
the apostles.” “And there are some who have heard from 
him that John the disciple of the Lord, having gone to have 
a bath in Ephesus, and having seen Cerinthus inside,” hastened 
from the bath. In his letter to Florinus, Irenzeus discloses 
the source of his information. When he was a boy he used to 
listen to the discourses of Polycarp, and he professes to have 
the most distinct recollection of them, “and how he reported 
his intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the 
Lord.”* So certain is Ireneus of the correctness of his 
information that he introduces it into a letter of remonstrance 
addressed to Victor, the Bishop of Rome,’ for having 
excommunicated the Quartodeciman churches. He relates 
how Polycarp came to Rome in the time of Anicetus,® with 
whom he conferred about Easter; and Anicetus could not 
persuade Polycarp, since he had always observed the festival 
in the way objected to, “with John the disciple of our Lord 

1 xiil. 16. 2 Her., ll. i. 1, in Greek. 

3 111. iii. 4, in Greek, where he says that in his early manhood, ἐν τῇ 
πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ [“ about seventeen,” according to Philo, De Josepho, 1], he 
has seen Polycarp, the latter having lived to a great age. 


4 Preserved by Eusebius, H. E., v. 20. 
5 About 189-199 A.D. ὁ Not later than the year 155. 


JOHN IN ASIA 209 


and with the rest of the Apostles with whom he associated.” 1 
It seems therefore abundantly proved that Irenzus’ belief 
that the Apostle John lived to a great age in Asia Minor was 
not a momentary error, but was a settled conviction, which 
he held without the least misgiving; and it seems highly 
improbable either that he misunderstood Polycarp, or that, if 
he did, he should never have found out his mistake from 
intercourse with others who must have had correct informa- 
tion. One thing appears to be quite certain, that there was 
some John in Asia Minor who was highly distinguished, and 
to whom Polycarp was in the habit of appealing as an 
authority of the first class, one who, if not an apostle, was to 
be ranked with apostles, 

We have a perfectly independent testimony from a con- 
temporary of Irenzus, Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus.2 A 
letter was addressed by him to Victor, Bishop of Rome, in 
defence of the Quartodeciman practice which prevailed in the 
churches of Asia, and a portion of this letter has been 
preserved by Eusebius.2 He declares that the churches are 
faithful to the tradition which has come down to them from 
“great luminaries”* who have fallen asleep in Asia, and he 
mentions “Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in 
Hierapolis, . . . and moreover also John who leaned on the 


breast of the Lord, who became a priest wearing the πέταλον, 


1 Preserved by Eusebius, v. 24. 2 Euseb., H. £., iii. 31. 

3 Ibid., and v. 24, which contains the fullest extract. 4 Srotxeia. 

δ The High-priest’s golden plate. Epiphanius says that James, the 
brother of the Lord, wore the πέταλον, and was allowed to enter the 
Holy of Holies once a year, because he was a Nazarite and connected with 
the priesthood [Her., xxix. 4, lxxviii. 13, 14]. His statement is not of 
much value, especially as he is not supported by the authorities whom 
he names. The Martyriwm of the evangelist Mark says that he wore the 
petalon among the Jews. Dean Plumptre notices the interesting fact 
“that the portrait of Josephus, commonly found in the English editions, 
represents him with this petalon. I do not know,” he adds, “from what 


14 


210 PAPIAS 


both witness [or, martyr] and teacher: he sleeps in Ephesus. 
And moreover also Polycarp in Smyrna, both bishop and 
martyr.”! He refers also to Thraseas, Sagaris, Papeirius, and 
Melito. In this extract there can be no doubt that the 
Apostle John is referred to, for only to him will the description | 
that he leaned on the breast of the Lord apply. This state- 
ment has indeed been challenged by Bousset, on the ground 
that the narrative of the Synoptics may not be exact, and — 
that Polycrates describes John, not as an apostle, but as a 
teacher.2 But as regards the Synoptics, the question is not 
whether they may be in error, but whether Polycrates can 
have mistrusted them; and here, surely, there can be no 
reasonable doubt. We may add that the Fourth Gospel 
itself does not suggest the presence of any but the twelve 
at the last supper. The description of John as a disciple 
conforms to the early usage; and Philip is described as one of | 
the twelve apostles in order to distinguish him from the well- 
known evangelist. John, without some distinctive epithet, 
naturally means the apostle; and if Polycrates had meant the 


picture the engraving was made, but the fact seems to indicate that the © 
practice was not so strange as it appears to us. Josephus, it will be | 
remembered, claimed descent from the sons of Aaron, and it is not unlikely / 
that both St John and the brother of the Lord may have had a like - 
claim” (The General Epistle of St James, in the Cambridge Bible for 
Schools and Colleges, p. 29, note 1). Some understand the phrase 
figuratively, as expressive of John’s leading position among the Christians. _ 
Compare Jerome’s insertion, “pontifex ejus fuit” (De Vir. ill., 45). 
Lightfoot, who regards the words as a metaphor, says, “the short 
fragment which contains them has several figurative expressions, almost, 
if not quite, as violent,” and thinks “the whole passage is a very rude 
specimen of the florid ‘ Asiatic’ style.” Still he thinks it possible “thet 

St John did wear this decoration as an emblem of his Christian privileges ” 

(see the note in St Pauls Epistle to the Galatians, 1865, p. 336). 

Others have doubted the genuineness of the words. See the long note in 

Heinichen’s Husebius, H. E., v. 24, note 3; also the note in Liicke, Com. 

diber das Εν. Johan., 1840, pp. 20 sq. 


1 Mdprus. 2 Meyer's Kom. Offenb., pp. 43 sq. 


i 


JOHN IN ASIA 211 


Presbyter, he would surely have given him his distinctive 
title. 1 can therefore feel no uncertainty as to the meaning 
of the passage. Now we must observe that Polycrates did 
not, like Irenzus, write at a distance, where he would have 
no opportunity of correcting mistaken impressions, but. in 
Ephesus, the very city where John was said to be buried. 
Here, then, we must have the tradition of the Ephesian 
church, and not a personal blunder of Polycrates himself. 
We must further observe that this was not a private epistle, 
but received the approval of a great number of bishops who 
were consulted upon the subject of the controversy, so that 
presumably the traditions here recorded were traditions of the 
Asiatic churches generally, or at least consistent with them. 
Further, Polycrates refers to his grey hairs, and says that he 
has been sixty-five years in the Lord, and had had com- 
munications with the brethren from all parts of the world. 
He was, therefore, at least sixty-five years old; and if we 
suppose the letter to have been written about 195 A.D., his 
memory would carry him back to the period when Polycarp 
was still alive, and Irenzus was listening to his teaching. 
’ We must add that he was a follower of some of his own 
relatives,? and seven of his relatives were bishops, so that he 
must have been familiar with traditions older than his own 
time. If we put all these considerations together, I think 
they establish a strong probability that the Apostle John 
ended his earthly days at Ephesus. 

We have some direct evidence that the confident belief of 
Irenzeus and Polycrates was not due to a mistake made for 


1 Bousset’s transfiguration of the obscure Presbyter into a distinguished 
resident in Jerusalem, belonging to the priestly race, reduces our whole 
question to one of merely academic interest ; for if the Gospel, after all, was 
‘written by Christ’s dearest and most intimate friend, it matters little 
whether the name of the author’s father was Zebedee or not. 

2 ᾿Απὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης. 3 Παρηκολούθησα τισὶν αὐτῶν. 


212 PAPIAS 


the first time in their own generation. Justin Martyr says, 
“And then among us also a certain man, whose name was 
John, one of the apostles of Christ, in a revelation made to © 
him, prophesied that those who believed our Christ would 
spend a thousand years in Jerusalem.”! This is a clear 
reference to the Apocalypse; and as that work refers to the 
residence of John in Patmos, it is a reasonable inference that 
the Asiatic tradition was already in existence when Justin 
wrote. Further, there is extant a letter addressed by the 
church in Smyrna to the church in Philomelium (in Phrygia), 
giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, and written 
not very long after that event. Its genuineness has indeed 
been impugned in recent times, but 1 think on very in- 
sufficient grounds.” In this letter Polycarp is described as 
διδάσκαλος ἀποστολικὸς καὶ προφητικός58. The latter epithet is 
explained by the belief of the writers that every word which 
he spoke would be fulfilled; but the former, which receives 
no explanation in the context, naturally refers to his early 
intercourse with the apostles, and is to that extent confirmatory — 
of the later tradition. 

There are two later witnesses outside the Asiatic circle 
to whom we must refer. Tertullian challenges the heretics 
to show that the first Bishop of any of their churches had 
been appointed by apostles or apostolic men. This the 
apostolic churches were able to do, “as the church of the 
Smyrneans relates that Polycarp was appointed by John.”¢4 
Tertullian does not mention the source of his information, 
and he is not always correct; but taking this statement in 
connection with other evidence, I think we may fairly say 


1 Pral., 81. 
2 See the careful examination of Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II. 
Vol. i. p. 604 sqq. 


3 § 16. 4 De Prescrip. Heret., 32. 


JOHN IN ΑΒΔ’. 213 


that he reports correctly the tradition of the church of 
Smyrna. Our other witness is Clement of Alexandria. He 
relates the well-known touching story about John and the 
young disciple who became the chief of a band of robbers. 
This story, he says, was handed down and committed to 
memory “about John the Apostle,” and in the course of it he 
speaks of John’s residence in Ephesus, in the neighbourhood 
of which the incident took place.1 Now Clement had care- 


fully collected traditions handed down from Peter and James, 


John and Paul, and one of his teachers was an Ionian of 
Greece, from whom he may have learnt the tradition of the 
Asiatic churches.? It seems probable, therefore, that we have 
here a distinct line of tradition, which affords independent 
confirmation of the statements of Irenzeus and Polycrates. 

It is needless to appeal to later writers. None of them 
contradicts the earlier statements, and we have no reason to 
suppose that they put us in possession of fresh sources of 


knowledge. The testimonies of Irenzus, of Polycrates, and 


of Clement are those on which we must mainly rely. In 
judging of the collective force of the evidence, we must not 
forget that the second century was a literary age. The 
churches freely communicated with one another by letters, 
and there was an abundant theological literature of which 
only a few fragments have survived. I see no reason why 
the churches of Asia should not have had as well-grounded a 
certainty that John had been once among them as we have 
that Goldsmith was once in London. Even if there were 
nothing but oral tradition to depend upon, still oral tradition 
can hardly go astray in regard to the broad fact in so short 
atime. The Asiatic John was a public character, known to 


numbers of people in various places. His name would be 


1 Quis div. salv., 42, p. 949, Potter. 
2 Strom., 1. i. p. 322, referred to by Lightfoot, Essays, Ὁ. 218, note 2. 


214 PAPIAS 


handed down with the utmost veneration. If he was called 
the Presbyter to distinguish him from the Apostle, the name 
Presbyter would have clung to him. When Ireneus and 
Polycrates were young men, numbers besides Polycarp must 
have known with absolute certainty whether the Apostle 
had lived in Ephesus or not, and these later writers cannot 
have owed all their knowledge of the fact to the venerable 
bishop. I think, therefore, that the evidence of John’s 
presence in Asia Minor is entitled to command our assent 
unless very strong arguments can be produced against it. 

We must, however, in fairness look at the other side of the 
question. Dr Salmon, alluding to the opinion of Scholten and 
Keim, says, “The arguments they offer in support of their 
paradox are so weak that I have not thought it worth while 
to discuss them.”! With this judgment I am unable to agree. 
Some of the phenomena are certainly perplexing, and might 
affect our conclusion were it not for the weight of the evidence 
upon the other side. At all events we cannot hold an opinion 
with intelligence and confidence till we know what can be said 
against it, 

First, there seems to be a conspiracy of silence among the 
more ancient writers. In the account in Acts? of Paul’s 
farewell address to the Ephesian elders, there is a prediction 
that “grievous wolves” will enter in among them, but no ~ 
allusion to the future presence of an apostle. But even if we 
suppose the speech to be entirely invented, the writer of Acts 
had far too much literary skill to insert such an improbable 
allusion. The narrative, however, is contained among the 
“we” passages, so that the speech may be in substance a 
genuine report, and Paul’s prediction may be founded on his 
experience of Judaizing opposition. That the writer of Acts 
himself gives us no information is only in accordance with the — 


1 Introduction, p. 333, note *. 2 xx. 17-38. 


JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 215 


general plan of his work. Again, John is not mentioned in 
the later Pauline Epistles, notably Ephesians and Colossians, 
or in τ Peter. Of course not if they are genuine: if they are 
spurious, a forger who could produce such epistles would be 
equal to the avoidance of a glaring anachronism. The silence 
of Polycarp is less easily explained. It is natural that in 
writing to the Philippians he should dwell especially upon 
Paul, whose name alone is mentioned. But it is strange that 
_ he should quote so largely, not only from the Pauline Epistles, 
but from 1 Peter, and have such scanty allusions to the 
Johannine writings. It is, however, possible that Peter, 
whose name was prominent at Corinth in the time of Paul, 
and who is believed to have journeyed to Rome at the end of 
his life, may have been much better known than John at 
Philippi; and it deserves notice that the Apocalypse is as 
little alluded to as the Fourth Gospel, although it contains a 
letter to the church at Smyrna. Ignatius, again, in his letter 
_ to the Ephesians mentions Paul, but not John! The reference 
to Paul, however, is occasioned by special circumstances. Paul 
on his journey to his long imprisonment had stopped at 
Miletus, and sent for the elders of the Ephesian Church to 
meet him there. Ignatius stopped at Smyrna on his way to 
martyrdom at Rome, and received a deputation from Ephesus. 
It is no doubt in allusion to this resemblance in their fortunes 
that he says, “ye are a road of transit? of those who are slain 
unto God, and are associated in the mysteries with Paul the 
sanctified,” in whose steps he wishes to be found. A reference 
to John here would be quite out of place. But only two or 
three lines before, in the previous section, he expresses his 
wish to be found in the lot of the Ephesian Christians, “who 
also continually agreed with the apostles in the power of 
Jesus Christ.” This may very well be an allusion to the 


1 § 12. 2 Tdpodos. 


216 PAPIAS 


residence of John among them. The plural, apostles, shows 
that more than Paul are referred to, and πάντοτε suggests a 
repeated and long-continued connection. Clement of Rome? 
says that the Apostles, preaching in country and cities, 
appointed their first fruits to be bishops and deacons; and as 
they foresaw that there would be strife about the office, they 
made provision that, when those whom they appointed fell 
asleep, other approved men should succeed them. The sequel 
of the passage shows that some of those appointed by the 
apostles were living, while others had already died. This 
statement certainly leaves the impression that the apostolic 
age was over, and, though still within living memory, was 
seen through a perspective of many years. But even if, with 
Lightfoot, we place the Epistle as early as 95 or 96, or, with 
Harnack, 93-95, the apostles of the Romans and Corinthians, 
Paul and Peter, had died a generation earlier, and the language 
of Clement is perfectly appropriate. Still I confess I find it 


hard to believe that one of the greatest apostles was still living, 


and residing in the very city from which Paul addressed his 
first letter to the Corinthians. But the date of the Epistle 
of Clement is not absolutely certain, and if we might place 
it a very few years later, the last of the apostles would have 
gone to his rest, and the silence of the Epistle would be quite 
intelligible. We may also observe that the tradition that 
John survived till the time of Trajan can hardly claim the 
same degree of certainty as that of his residence in Asia; for 


it belongs to a kind of fact in which a mistake might much 


more easily be made.? Thus the silence of early documents, 
though we may regret it, does not furnish a strong adverse 


1 42 and 44. 
* The Paschal Chronicle places the deaths of John and Clement in the 


same year ; but the former is mentioned only as what was reported, φασί. 
Ed. Dindorf, i. p. 470. 


ae en 


JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 217 


argument. Negative evidence is notoriously precarious, and 
often the silence of writers about facts which they must 
have known is difficult to understand. For instance, in the 
documents above alluded to, how many things are omitted in 
Acts which we might reasonably expect to find, and how 
strange it is especially that the author does not tell us what 
became of Paul at the end of his two years’ residence in Rome. 
We may add that, if the Asiatic John was the Presbyter, and 
the author of the Gospel, the silence of the early writers is 
scarcely less perplexing; for in that case the Presbyter was 
the greatest Christian of his time, a man to be ranked with 
the Apostle Paul in the fervour of his Christian experience 
and the profundity of his spiritual genius. But how much 
may be written even in modern times without reference to 
the greatest men of the age, or to the teachers who are most 
deeply revered by the authors. The ancients did not, any 
more than ourselves, write for the special delectation and 
instruction of remote critics. 

Both sides have appealed to the testimony of Hegesippus. 
According to Eusebius! he stated that Symeon the son of 
Clopas, Bishop of Jerusalem, survived till the time of Trajan, 
when he died by crucifixion at the age of 120, and he added 
that down to these times the Church remained a pure virgin; 
but when the sacred company of apostles had died in various 
ways, and the generation of those who had heard the inspired 
wisdom had passed away, then atheistic error arose through 
the deceit of heterodox teachers, who, as none of the apostles 
was any longer left, attempted to preach their false-named 
Gnosis. . From this passage, it might be argued, that one of 
the apostles at least must have survived till the time of 
Trajan; but Holtzmann? objects that only Symeon is men- 
tioned as having reached that late period. Weiss concedes 

ἼΣΗ E,, iii, 32. 2 Hinl., p. 455. 


218 PAPIAS 


that the passage is inconclusive, because Eusebius does not 
profess to quote the very words of Hegesippus, and where he 
does quote them ! there is no mention of the apostles, but only 
a statement that they called the Church virgin till the time of 
Symeon.2 I do not think, however, that Eusebius is really 
reporting the same passages of Hegesippus, for the one which 
he quotes verbally is part of the account of the appointment 
of Symeon as Bishop, whereas the other, of which he gives 
the substance, followed the account of his martyrdom. I 
consider it probable, therefore, that in the earlier passage we 
have, if not the exact words, at least the general meaning of 
Hegesippus; but I agree, nevertheless, with Weiss in believing 
that its evidence is neutral. On the one hand, it does not say 
that any of the apostles survived till the time of Trajan. On 
the other hand, there is nothing adverse to such a fact; for if 
Symeon outlived John, he would be the last representative of 
the generation of eye-witnesses. We may observe, further, 
that Hegesippus is evidently treating of the Church at Jeru- 
salem; and though the remark about its purity may be 
applicable to the Church at large, it would be out of place to 
fly off to Asia Minor and tell us that John had died there, 
not many years before. It must be remembered also, that 
Hegesippus cannot have been much older than Irenzeus, and 
that though he visited Corinth and Rome? we have no reason 
for supposing that he was ever in Asia Minor; and, therefore, 
unless he recorded a tradition that the Apostle John died in 
Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem, or something of 
that kind, it would be absurd to compare his authority with 
that of Irenzeus in the question before us. The fact is, how- 
ever, that he relates no such tradition, and that, for anything 
we know, he may have told in some part of his five books 
that John died at Ephesus in the time of Trajan. 


1 Tn 19) 225 2 Einl., p. 365, note 4. 3 Kus., H. £., iv. 22. 


΄, . 2a 


JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 219 


It is alleged that the book of Revelation! represents all the 
Apostles as dead, in the passage where, after the description 
of the downfall of the great city, Babylon, are the words, 
“ Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye saints, and ye apostles, 
and ye prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on 
It is, I think, a sufficient answer to this argument that 


2) 


her. 
the author of the book reckoned himself among the prophets,” 
so that he cannot have believed that all the prophets were 
dead ; and if it be said that the reference is only to the ancient 
prophets, we may refer to “the saints,” and we certainly can- 
not admit that their number was regarded as closed. The 
fact that James, Peter and Paul at all events had died by 
martyrdom is sufficient to explain the allusion, especially 
when we remember that the passage is prophetic, and in its 
references to the past, is looking back from an imaginary 
future. 

On the whole, then, it appears to me that the attempt to 
prove from early documents that the later tradition was 
erroneous must be pronounced a failure. At first, 1 fully 
allow, the unanimous silence of so many possible witnesses is 
a little startling; but when we reflect not only on the 
character of the particular works to which appeal can fairly | 
be made, but on what may be called the literary fragmentari- 
ness of the earliest Christian writers generally, and the strange 
silences that we undoubtedly find in them, our surprise wears 
off, and nothing is left in the shape of substantial argument. 
We must, however, notice the efforts which have been made to 
weaken the later testimony. 

It is urged that Irenzus in different places refers to his 
John as μαθητὴς κυρίου, and that both he and Polycrates were 
misled by the use of this expression, and confounded the 
Presbyter with the Apostle. To this we may reply that it is 


1 xviii. 20, 2 See especially xxii. 9. 


220 PAPIAS 


not likely that they should both fall into this mistake, and 
have misled all subsequent writers by such a casual blunder. 
Then we must remember that they were not guided by a 
passing literary statement, which might have been misunder- 
stood, but were relying upon their recollections of a time when 
they had abundant means of correcting any false impression. 
Moreover, we find that Papias himself thought “the disciple of 
the Lord” a sufficient description of the Apostle; and if we 
learn anything at all about a second John, it is that he was 
carefully distinguished from the Apostle by the title of the 
Presbyter. We must therefore conclude that “John the 
disciple of the Lord,’ when standing alone, meant the Apostle 
just as much in the time of Polycarp as in that of Irenzus. 

But it is said that we have positive proof that Irenzus 
confounded the two men; for as Eusebius points out, he says 
that Papias was a hearer of John, meaning the Apostle, where- 
as he was really a hearer, not of the Apostle, but of the 
Presbyter.1 But the fact is that the passage quoted by 
Eusebius affords no proof that he was a hearer of either the 
one or the other. This discloses a weak spot in Harnack’s 
argument. He assumes that Irenzus derived his notion that 
Papias was a hearer of some John from that father’s own 
work, and that Papias knows of only one John, namely, the 
Presbyter, for Asia.? But in fact there is not a particle of 
evidence that Papias ever met the Presbyter John; and that 
he had never much intercourse with him seems clearly implied 
in his having to rely upon others for the sayings of the 
Presbyter. We must add that the assumption is equally 
without foundation that the Presbyter was ever in Asia at all. 


' In his Chronicle, Eusebius is content to accept Irenus’ statement 
(Schoene’s ed., ii. p. 162). Later references to Papias as Ἰωάννον μαθητής 
may have had their origin in the same statement.| 

2 Chronologie, p. 657. 3 Poze 


JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 221 


Aristion, who is named with him, is, as we have seen, tradition- 
ally connected with Cyprus. Irenzus’ statement, whether 
correct or not, was not derived from a misunderstanding of the 
passage cited from Papias’ preface, for it is coupled with the 
information that Papias was a companion of Polycarp, and this 
receives no support from the extract. I think we must infer 
from Eusebius’ account that, if he was ever a hearer of the 
Apostle, it was for so short a time that he retained no 
reminiscences which he thought worth recording. Perhaps 
Irenzeus made a mistake, and, having heard that he was a 
companion of Polycarp’s, inferred that he must have been one 
of those who had listened to John. But a mistake of this 
kind does not justify us in believing that he was mistaken on 
the main question; for he was a hearer of Polycarp’s, and 
distinctly remembered his person and his teaching, whereas 
we have no reason for supposing that he had any personal 
acquaintance with Papias, or that Polycarp, whenever he 
referred to his intercourse with John, took care to state that 
Papias was with him. 

Holtzmann,' however, thinks there is absolute proof that 
in one instance Irenzus has confounded the Presbyter with 
the Apostle; and, if in one instance, why not in all? Eusebius, 
_ he says, traces the chiliastic fancies of Papias to Aristion and 
the Presbyter John as their source, whereas Irenzus derives 
them from the Apostle John. But I think Holtzmann has not 
scanned his authorities with his usual care. Irenzus? relates 
on the authority of Papias, that elders, who had seen John 
the disciple of the Lord, remembered having heard from him 
how the Lord taught about the messianic times; and then 


1 Brbel-Lex., p. 358. Bousset also relies upon this argument (Meyer, 
Offenb., p. 42). Why he appeals to the Armenian fragment in Harvey’s 


edition of Irenzeus (ii. p. 448) I do not know, for it agrees with the Latin 
text. 


2 Vv. Xxxlii. 3-4. 


222 PAPIAS 


follows the absurd passage about the vines. Now, if we 
interpret this by the fragment of Papias’ preface, I believe 
the fact must stand thus: Papias recorded what he thought 
he had once heard from elders who had seen the Apostle John, 
or perhaps only from followers of those elders. It is here that 
Irenzeus calls Papias a hearer of John; but if he meant that 
Papias himself remembered having heard the story from John, 
I think he would have said that Papias, or at all events an 
elder, and not “the elders,’ had this recollection. Eusebius 
is in complete agreement with this. Having made his general 
criticism about the two Johns, he passes on to stories which 
Papias received from the daughters of Philip. Then he refers 
to strange parables and teachings of the Saviour which had 
come to him “from unwritten tradition,’ among which were 
objectionable things about the millennium, But instead of 
saying that these things rested on the authority of the 
Presbyter John, he supposes that Papias, owing to the small- 
ness of his understanding, did not perceive the figurative 
character of “the apostolic narratives.”2 “Unwritten 
tradition” exactly describes the process indicated by Irenzeus, 
and “apostolical” points to the Apostle and not to the 
Presbyter. Having completed this subject, Eusebius adds, 
“but also he commits to his own writing other narratives of 
the words of the Lord, of the aforementioned Aristion, and 
traditions of the Presbyter John.’ I need hardly remark 
that “other” in Greek does not imply that the previous 
account came from the same source. The meaning is simply 
that he introduced other narratives into his work, and that 
these were derived from Aristion and the Presbyter John. It 

1 This has been traced by Dr J. Rendel Harris to a Hebrew Midrash on 
the “Blessing of Isaac” (American Journal of Theology, July 1900, p. 499). 
It is a silly exaggeration of poetical language in the prophets. Its germ 


may be seen in the Book of Enoch, x. το. 
2 Tas ἀποστολικὰς ... . διηγήσεις. 


ee eee 


JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS ae 


seems, then, that on this particular point Eusebius and Irenzeus 
are in complete agreement.’ 

If the view hitherto taken be correct, another of 
Holtzmann’s improbabilities falls to the ground. He thinks 
it most unlikely that there were two Johns, who were both 
disciples of the Lord, both removed to Ephesus, both lived to 
a great age, and both were characterized by a similar activity. 
But the simple fact is, that we have only the most shadowy 
proof that the Presbyter John was ever in Asia Minor at all. 
For anything that we know, he may have died in Palestine 
long before the Apostle John. The supposition that the 
Presbyter was ever in Ephesus seems due to a conjecture of 
Dionysius of Alexandria. In discussing the authorship of the 
Apocalypse, he admits that it was by some one named John. 
There was John Mark, but whether he was the writer he 
would not affirm, as, according to Acts, he turned back from 
Asia. He supposes it was some one else in Asia, “for they 
say that there were erected * two monuments in Ephesus, and 
each is called John’s.”* It is clear from this that Dionysius 
knew nothing historically of a second John in Asia, and that 
if he knew anything of the Presbyter John, he cannot have 
placed him there. The Apostolical Constitutions, a work on 
which no reliance can be placed, also refers to two Johns at 
Ephesus, of whom the second was ordained by the Apostle®; 
but the second is not called the Presbyter. The identification 
of the Presbyter of Papias with the second John of Dionysius 
seems to have been reserved for Eusebius®; and he offers 


11 am glad to observe that Corssen, who rejects the Johannine author- 
ship of the Gospel, thinks that the notion of a confusion between the 
Apostle and the Presbyter is quite untenable. See his article, “ Warum ist 
das vierte Evangelium fiir ein Werk des Apostels Johannes erklirt worden ?” 
in the Zeitschr. fiir neutest. Wiss., 1901, pp. 207 846. 

2 Bibel-Lex., p. 358. 3 Τενέσθαι. 4 Euseb., H. E., vil. 25. 

5 vii. 46. 6 H. E., iii. 39. 


224 PAPIAS 


nothing in support of it but his own conjecture. Jerome 
informs us that a second sepulchre was pointed out at 
Ephesus, and some believed that the two monuments 
commemorated the same John the Evangelist.’ It appears, 
therefore, that we have no direct testimony to the existence of 
two Johns in Asia Minor, and the only evidence is the alleged 
presence of two monuments in Ephesus, which Dionysius, who | 
had nothing but hearsay to go upon, assigned conjecturally to : 
two men of the same name. London, however, can boast two 
monuments of Goldsmith, one in Westminster Abbey, and 
another in the Temple; but this fact has not yet led to the 
creation of two Goldsmiths, or the denial that the same man | 
can be the author of such dissimilar works as “The Vicar of 
Wakefield,” “The Deserted Village,” and “She Stoops to 
Conquer.” Our Asiatic witnesses tell us nothing of a second 
John, and I am therefore inclined to agree with Holtzmann 
that there was only one celebrated man of this name in 
Ephesus. But if so, the whole of our evidence goes to prove 
that this one man was the Apostle. Of the existence of a 
Presbyter John in Asia we have no testimony of any kind, 
and we have no evidence beyond a very doubtful inter- 
pretation placed by Eusebius upon the words of Papias. 
Without following Dr Salmon, then, in denying the 
reality of the Presbyter, we see that there is no reason 
for regarding him as the perplexing double of the Apostle 
in Ephesus. 

Holtzmann? makes what I cannot but think rather a 
strange assertion in support of his position. He says that the 
Muratorian Canon, in which the Fourth Gospel meets us, as it 


1 De Vir. ill., ix. There is, however, a reading “memoratas” instead of 
“ memorias,” and this would refer to the two epistles, the second and third, 
which have been just spoken of as ascribed to John the Presbyter. 

2 Hinl., p. 455. 


JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 225 


were, in the first freshness of recognized canonicity, regards 
Jerusalem as the place of composition, and, as the time of 
composition, the period when the Apostles were still united, so 
that the Johannine writings preceded the Epistles of Paul. 
On this statement several remarks immediately suggest 
themselves. The priority of John to Paul is spoken of in 
connection with the Apocalypse, and has nothing to do with 
the Gospel. If the composition of the Gospel is really 
assigned to the period before the destruction of Jerusalem, the 
statement certainly contradicts the usual tradition, but is in 
no way inconsistent with the removal of the Apostle to 
Ephesus, after Jerusalem was destroyed. But, in fact, the 
fragment says nothing whatever about either time or place of 
composition, and the author might look for John’s “fellow- 
disciples and bishops,” who exhorted him to write the Gospel, 
just as well in Ephesus as in Jerusalem. Considering that 
the fragment must have been written as late as the time of 
Irenzus, it is not likely that the author meant to depart so 
widely from the tradition of the time; and we have already 
seen that the tradition included other apostles, along with 
John, in the Asiatic residence. In this argument, then, I 
cannot feel any weight whatever. 

Another argument is that Papias places John late in his list 
of apostles about whose sayings he inquired, and gives no hint 
of his having been in Asia. But we have no reason to 
suppose that the list is arranged in reference to the proximity 
of the several apostles to Papias. John and Matthew are 
given at the end, we know not why. Papias knew a work 
by Matthew, and still he names him last, and he may place 
John with him, for anything we know to the contrary, as the 
other apostolic evangelist. Since he does not name the 
locality of any of the Presbyters or Apostles, it is no wonder 


that he did not go out of his way to tell us that John had 
15 


226 PAPIAS 


come to Ephesus, a fact which, if true, must have been as well 
known to his readers as to himself. 

Again, it is confidently alleged that Philip the Evangelist 
settled at Hierapolis, and was changed by tradition into Philip 
the Apostle. This, however, is a very questionable statement. 
Our earliest witness is Papias himself. He mentions Philip 
among the “disciples of the Lord” after whose sayings he 
inquired; and as his name occurs in the midst of those of 
apostles, it is evident that the Apostle is meant. There is no 
reference to any other Philip. Accordingly, when Papias 
relates a story received from the daughters of Philip, the 
natural inference is that he alludes to the Apostle. Eusebius, 
in this connection, calls him “ Philip the Apostle”; but, as he 
is not quoting, we cannot be sure that these are the words of 
Papias. Without these words, however, the reasonable sup- 
position surely is that the Apostle is meant. Our next 
witness is Polycrates, who, in the letter already referred to, 
tells us that Philip, one of the twelve apostles, sleeps at 
Hierapolis, and also his two daughters, aged virgins, while 
his other daughter rests in Ephesus. The expression Φίλιππον 


Tov τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων Clearly indicates a desire to dis-. © 


tinguish this Philip from another one, so that the statement 
of Polycrates is deliberate, and not an accidental error. 
Clement of Alexandria to some extent confirms this account 
when, in combating those who disapproved of marriage, he 
says that the Apostles Peter and Philip had children, and 
Philip even gave his daughters to husbands.2 This is not in 
strict agreement with Polycrates; but we may accept it as a 
general statement, and sufficiently accurate for the immediate 
purpose. Clement does not say anything about Philip’s 
residence in Asia, and the value of his testimony lies in the 
assertion that the Apostle had daughters. There is no appear- 

1 Euseb., H. £., iii. 31, v. 24. Strom., 111. 6, Ὁ. 535- | 


JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 227 


ance of confusion between the apostle and evangelist till we 
come to rather a later time. Eusebius quotes a statement 
from the Dialogue between Caius and Proclus, in which the 
_ latter is represented as saying, “ After this four prophetesses, 
the daughters of Philip, arose in Hierapolis in Asia. Their 
tomb is there, and that of their father.”! From the resem- 
blance to Acts xxi. 9, we may suppose that the writer had the 
Evangelist in his mind; but he does not distinguish Philip as 
such. It is quite possible that Proclus, of whose opportunities 
of information we are ignorant, having heard that Philip 
and his daughters once resided at Hierapolis, thoughtlessly 
identified him with the Philip in Acts. This would have 
been a very natural confusion, and is sufficient to explain the 
whole difficulty ; for no one can seriously maintain that there 
is a difficulty in supposing that two men of the same name 
may each have had some daughters. The possibility of con- 
fusion is proved by the curious fact that Eusebius? identifies 
the Apostle with the Evangelist, although he quotes from 
Acts the very passage in which the latter is described as one 
of the seven. But it is quite clear that in the opinion of the 
historian it was the apostle who lived at Hierapolis, and that 
he, through some misunderstanding, was taken to be the same 
as the evangelist. I conclude, therefore, that the testimony of 
Polycrates is perfectly correct; that there was no confusion 
between the two men till a later date; and that when it 
took place it was not of the kind required by the argument, 
but, instead of substituting one man for the other, identified 
the two.’ 


* i, ML, 31. edn. Ty TS SY: 

3 Lightfoot also defends the statement of Polycrates; see his note in 
St Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, 1875, p. 45, note 3. 
Hilgenfeld also thinks the Apostle was in Asia, but apparently believes 
the writer of Acts to be mistaken, Hznl., p. 399, note 1. For the latter 
supposition I see no occasion. 


228 PAPIAS 


Perhaps the most formidable evidence is presented by an 
alleged statement of Papias that James and John were put 
to death by Jews. This allegation is contained in the 
Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus (of the ninth century); and 
as the context is of some ne importance, the passage must be 
presented in full. It is as follows:—* After Domitian, Nerva 
reigned one year; and he, having recalled John from the 
island, dismissed him to live in Ephesus. Then being the 
only survivor of the twelve disciples, and having composed 
the Gospel according to him, he has been deemed worthy of 
martyrdom. Παπίας yap ὁ ἹΙεραπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος αὐτόπτης 
τούτου γενόμενος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων 
φάσκει, ὅτι ὑπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη having evidently fulfilled 
with his brother? the prediction of Christ concerning him, 
and his own confession and assent in regard to this. For 
when the Lord said to them, Can ye drink the cup which I 
drink, and when they readily assented and agreed, Ye shall, 
he says, drink my cup, and be baptized with the baptism 
with which I am baptized; and this is as we should expect; 
for it is impossible for God to lie. And so also the very 
learned Origen, in the commentary on Matthew, affirms that 
John μεμαρτύρηκεν, intimating that he has learned this from 
the successors of the apostles. And indeed also the highly 
learned Eusebius says in the Ecclesiastical History, Thomas 
has had Parthia assigned to him; John, Asia, with whom 
having lived he ended his days in Ephesus.” ὃ | 

Hilgenfeld ascribed the statement which is here attributed 
to Papias to a spurious work, which, according to a conjecture 
of Overbeck’s, had been added to the bishop’s genuine hooks.* 
But the notion of a spurious work is partly due to a confusion 


1 2 Of John or of the martyrdom. 2 μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ. 
3 Quoted in the Greek by Hilgenfeld, Hinl., p. 399, note 2. 
4 Hinl., p. 63. 


JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 229 


between the early Father and another Papias who lived in the 
eleventh century; and Lightfoot has shown so conclusively 
that Overbeck’s conjecture is a baseless hypothesis that it 
may be sufficient to refer to his Hssays on Supernatural 
Religion, p. 210 sqq., and to his Epistle to the Galatians, p. 
259, note 1.2 At all events there is nothing in the above 
extract to suggest that the author had any work in his mind 
except the well-known and genuine “ Exposition of Dominical 
Oracles.” Its testimony has been confirmed by the extracts 
from the Codex Baroccianus 142, supposed to be made from 
Philippus Sidetes, which were published in 1888 in the Texte 
und Untersuchungen, v. 2. In one of these the writer says, 
Παπίας ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ λέγει ὅτι ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ Θεολόγος καὶ 
Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησανΞ3 We can 
hardly doubt, therefore, that some statement to this effect, or at 
least capable of being so understood, must have been contained 
in the work of Papias.* 

Lightfoot, writing before the publication of the fragment 
last quoted, thought that the statement of Georgius might 
be explained by a lacuna in the intermediate authority from 
which he drew his information, and that “the sentence may 
have run in the original somewhat in this way; Παπίας... 
φάσκει ὅτι Ἰωάννης [μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ  Pwuatwy βασιλέως κατεδικάσθη 
μαρτυρῶν εἰς ἸΪάτμον; Ἰάκωβος δὲ] ὑπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη. This 
way of filling the lacuna was suggested by the appeal of 
Georgius to Origen, whose words have been fortunately 
preserved, and are as follows:—“Herod slew James the 
brother of John with the sword; ὁ dé Ῥωμαίων βασιλεὺς, ws ἡ 

1 First edition. 2"P. 170: 

8 Harnack attaches little value to this statement. He thinks, with 
Lightfoot, that words must have been accidentally omitted in the copy 
of Georgius ; and he then suggests that a later scribe, noticing the error, 


clumsily inserted “and James his brother,” and that somehow this form 
of the text got into the Cod. Baroc. Chronol., i. p. 665 sqq. 


225. PAPIAS 


παράδοσις διδάσκει, κατεδίκασε τὸν Ἰωάννην μαρτυροῦντα διὰ 
τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον εἰς Πάτμον τὴν νῆσον. Since the 
discovery of the second extract this explanation can no longer 
be accepted exactly as it stands; for it is clear that Papias 
himself must have said something which seemed to bear the 


interpretation put upon it by two independent writers. 


Nevertheless I think the true solution of the difficulty is to 
be sought in the direction which Lightfoot indicates, and 
that in any case the testimony affords no support to those 
who deny the Asiatic residence of John. It is most improbable 
that Papias affirmed that James and John were killed by the 
Jews at the same time; for we know from the Epistle to the 
Galatians that John was alive, and one of the pillars of the 
Church, after the death of his brother, and Luke, in relating 
the latter event, certainly implies that he survived, and 
became so generally known that the name John, when used 
by itself, could refer to no one else? If, therefore, Papias 
meant that the brothers suffered martyrdom together, his 
testimony is worthless; and if he does not mean that, then 
he may have thought that John was martyred at Ephesus in 
the time of Trajan. That he did not place the two martyrdoms 
together is shown, not only by the general probabilities of the 
case, but by the fact that he mentions James without any 
distinguishing epithet, implying that James the son of 
Zebedee was dead at the time when his informants were in 
communication with John. That he said nothing inconsistent 
with the Asiatic residence of the Apostle may be inferred from 
the words of Georgius, who calls him an eye-witness of the 
apostle (or of his martyrdom), and says that the latter lived 
in Ephesus as the only survivor of the apostles just before he 
appeals to Papias. That the words of the Bishop are not 


1 Com. in Matth., Tom. xvi. ὃ 6. See Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural 
Religion, p. 212. 2 Acts xii,/2: 


JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 231 


quoted exactly we may infer from the epithet ὁ θεολόγος, 
applied to John in the second of our two extracts, for we 
have no reason to suppose that that epithet came into use 
till a considerably later date.’ I conceive, therefore, with 
Lightfoot, that an error has arisen from a misunderstanding 
of the word μαρτυρῶν, which did not in its early use imply 
martyrdom. We have seen that Polycrates speaks of John 
as a μάρτυς, and immediately afterwards gives the same title 
to Polycarp, who was really a martyr in our sense of the 
word. Origen, in the passage quoted above, is commenting on 
the passage, “Ye shall drink my cup, and be baptized with 
the baptism with which I am baptized,” and regards the 
words as sufficiently fulfilled by John’s banishment to Patmos 
for his μαρτύριον3 We may infer from Georgius that Papias 
was illustrating the same prediction, and, if he used similar 
language, both Georgius and Philippus Sidetes may have 
misunderstood him just as the former has misunderstood 
Origen. But then, what about being killed “by the Jews?” 
. This would be explained if the Jews were represented as 
taking an active part in procuring the banishment of the 
Apostle; and that they were likely to take an active part we 
may judge from the statement in the letter about the martyr- 
dom of Polycarp that it was their custom to assist zealously 
in persecutions.2 This seems to be an adequate explanation 
of the statement ascribed to Papias, and, if adequate, then 
far more probable than the supposition that he gave an 

1 Weiss says, after the Nicene Council: Hinl., p. 366. 

2 Similarly Thecla, who survived her persecutions, is called ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ 
mpwroudptus (in Grabe’s ed. Spicilegiwm Patrum, i. p. 119. See Tisch., 
Acta Apost. Apoc., p, 63). The Apocalypse itself says of John, ὃς 
ἐμαρτύρησεν, i. 2. 

3 § xiii. 17-18. See also Justin M., Dial., 16-17. In the Acts of John, 
which are of early date, the apostle is made to drink, though without 


effect, a ποτήριον of poison, and the Jews are represented as inciting 
Domitian to persecute him. 


232 —  PAPTAS 


account which distinctly contravened the later tradition, and 
that Eusebius and others deliberately passed it over because 
they saw that it shattered the whole Johannine legend. 

We must still notice the evidence, such as it is, of the 
Syrian Martyrology. This is contained in a manuscript in the 
British Museum, and was edited by W. Wright in the Journal 
of Sacred Literatwre and Biblical Record. It professes to 
give “the names of our Lords the Confessors and Victors, 
and their days on which they gained (their) crowns.” Under 
December 27 we find the entry, “John and Jacob (James), the 
apostles, at Jerusalem.” Does this mean that the two brothers 
suffered martyrdom at the same time in Jerusalem ? and if so, 
is the testimony of any value? In order to answer these 
questions we must notice very briefly the nature and origin of 
Martyrologies.? They were constructed in process of time out 
of local calendars. At some period in the second half of the 
fifth century a martyrology was formed by welding together 
a number of provincial calendars, Roman, Italian, Spanish, 
and Gallic, into what was in effect a general Martyrology for 
Western Europe. At Nicodemia, about the year 360, a similar 
Eastern Martyrology was formed out of the local calendars; 
and this was translated with curtailments into Syriac at 
Edessa, about the year 400. It is a copy of this, made in 411, 
which is now in the British Museum. It is of Arian origin, 
for it contains the entry, under June 6, “ at Alexandria Areius 
the Presbyter,’ while Athanasius is omitted. The so-called 
Hieronymian Martyrology was formed by a fusion of the 
Western and Eastern Martyrologies. Now, in the original 
calendars the entries referred only to the days on which the 


1 Vol. VIII., New Series. The Syriac appeared in October 1865, 
Ῥ. 45 84.. and an English translation in the following January, p. 423 sq. 

2 T follow the article of Dom Butler in the Journal of Theological Studies, 
ii, 447-458, who himself gives a summary of the results reached by Η. 
Achelis, Die Martyrologien, thre Gesehichte und thr Wert, 1900. 


JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 233 


group of martyrs was commemorated in the respective 
localities; and hence the same martyr is often mentioned more 
than once, and assigned to different places, in the large Martyr- 
ology, for he was actually commemorated on different days in 
different districts. Thus in the Roman Martyrology, John the 
Apostle and Evangelist has his natalis kept at Ephesus on 
December 27; at Rome, where he was plunged without harm into 
boiling oil, he was commemorated on the 6th of May. The 
martyrdom of his brother James was celebrated on the 25th 
of July. The entry, then, which we are considering in the 
Syriac Martyrology, tells us nothing more than that the 
deaths of James and John were commemorated on the same 
day in Jerusalem, but does not imply that they were slain 
either at the same time or in the same place. Indeed it does 
not necessarily imply that John was slain at all; for the list 
includes Eusebius of Ceesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who 
were not martyrs. The martyrology, being translated from 
Greek, does not present us with any independent Syrian ἢ 
tradition; and Mr F. C. Burkitt, in a letter which he kindly 
sent me on the subject, says that “the native Syriac-speaking 
Church had, so far as I know, no knowledge of the tradition 
that St John was killed at Jerusalem. According to the 
Doctrine of Addai (Phillips, p. 44) the book of Acts was sent 
to Edessa by John! from Ephesus. According to the Edessene 
Canons (Cureton, p. 32), John lived at Ephesus. In other 
words, as far as the scanty evidence allows us to judge, they 
seem to have inherited the ordinary Church tradition.” Mr 
F. C. Conybeare, however, quotes the following statement from a 
fragment, translated from Syriac, appended to the Armenian 
translation of the Commentary of Ephram :—“Johannes 
scripsit illud [evangelium] graece Antiochiae, nam permansit 


1 What John is meant is rendered certain by the added words, “the 
son of Zebedee.” 


234 PAPIAS 


in terra usque ad tempus Traiani.”! I cannot help suspecting 
that Antioch must be simply a blunder for Ephesus or Asia; 
for the needless reference to Trajan seems like a reminiscence 
of Irenzus. At all events the statement gives no support to 
the notion of John’s martyrdom in Jerusalem. 

In fine, a few passages may be quoted which throw some 
further light on the way in which John’s martyrdom was 
regarded by ecclesiastical writers. Chrysostom seems to 
imply that he was really put to death. In interpreting 
Matthew xx. 22, 23, he says, βιαίῳ θανάτῳ τὴν ζωὴν Kataducere.” 
But while he expressly refers to James’ early martyrdom, he 
has no historical account of John’s; and in another Homily 
he speaks of the tomb of the latter as well known (δῆλος), and 
we must suppose that he refers to the tomb at Ephesus? 
Theophylact, commenting on the same passage, says, ᾿[Ιάκωβον 
μὲν yap “Hpadys ἀπέκτεινεν, Ἰωάννην δὲ Τραϊανὸς" κατεδίκασε 
μαρτυροῦντα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας. Finally, a fragment 
relating to the same prediction, ascribed by Victor of Capua 
(about 480 A.D.) to Polycarp, has been preserved; and this 
interprets Christ’s words as meaning that while James would - 
suffer real martyrdom, his brother John would pass away 
without martyrdom, though he would endure very many 
afflictions and exiles, but Christ judged as a martyr a mind 
prepared for martyrdom.t We cannot depend upon the 
ascription of this fragment to Polyearp; but it shows how 
easily a story of John’s violent death might arise from the 
misunderstanding of an ambiguous word. 


1 Ein Zeugnis Ephriims diber das Fehlen von c. 1 wnd 2 im Texte des Lucas, 
in the Zett. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, p. 193. 

2 Hom. in Matt., 65. 3 Hom. in Heb., 26. 

* Jacobum quidem novissimum martyrio consummandum, fratrem vero 
ejus Joannem transiturum absque martyrio, quamvis et afflictiones plurimas 
et exsilia tolerarit, sed preeparatam martyrio mentem Christus martyrem 
iudicavit. Quoted by Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 11. iii. p. 421. 


JOHN IN ASIA: CONCLUSION 235 


On the whole, then, we must conclude that there is no 
evidence whatever that John suffered an early martyrdom in 
Jerusalem; and the apparent evidence that he met with a 
violent death in Asia, in his old age, is exceedingly precarious.! 

I do not think Harnack adds any fresh argument in support 
of his thesis that the Presbyter was the distinguished Asiatic 
John. He seems driven into that hypothesis by his con- 
viction that the Apostle was not the author of the Gospel. 
Nevertheless he thinks the Gospel must have some connection 
with him, and accordingly reaches the conclusion that our 
Gospel is to be regarded as a εὐαγγέλιον ᾿Ιωάννου (τοῦ πρεσ- 
Burépov) κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην (τὸν Ζεβεδαίου). He believes that the 
Gospel, the Epistles, and the Christian revision of the 
Apocalypse all proceeded from the Presbyter,> and were 
written in Asia.t The acceptance of the Second and Third 
Epistles enables him to appeal with some effect to the term 
ὁ πρεσβύτερος, with which these Epistles begin.® No doubt 
an hypothesis of this kind would remove some difficulties ; but 
it rests upon no direct evidence, and it seems extremely | 
improbable that the man who had the genius to write the 
Fourth Gospel, and who was well known throughout the 
churches of Asia, should, through a blunder, have sunk into 
utter obscurity, and handed over his fame to another who 
was unknown to literature, and, in Asia at least, had never 
exercised his commanding influence. 

On a review of the whole argument I think that the attack 
on the traditional belief must be pronounced a failure, and 
that we may accept the united testimony of Irenzus, 
Polycrates, and Clement of Alexandria with reasonable 
confidence. | 


1 See an account of different legends in Baronius, who himself places 
John’s natural death in the year 1o1, at the age of ninety-three. 
2 Chron., p. 677. 3 P. 675, note. +P. 680, note 3. ΒΟῊΝ 


236 PAPIAS 


We now proceed to the evidence which seems to establish 
Papias’ acquaintance with the Johannine writings. In the 
first place, we have direct testimony that Papias was 
acquainted with the Apocalypse. Andreas of Cesarea in 
Cappadocia, about the closing years of the fifth century, 
expressly refers to Papias, and quotes from him, in his 
commentary on the Apocalypse, and in his prolegomena 
appeals to the testimony of Papias, among others, as a 
sufficient guarantee of its inspiration and credibility. The 
commentary of (icumenius and Arethas reproduces the 
quotation from Papias, but probably without reference to the 
original source. There is, however, an added description of 
Papias as “successor of the evangelist John.”! There seems 
to be no reason for doubting the correctness of the information 
which we thus obtain, confirmed as it is by the evident accord 
with Papias in the chiliastic conclusion of the commentary of 
Victorinus of Pettau,? and by the statement of Hieronymus, 


in his Prologue to Victorinus’ commentary, that Papias at 


an earlier time had entertained the same opinion about the 
thousand years’ reign.? The use of the Apocalypse by Papias 
is not only important in itself, as tending to carry back the 
Johannine tradition to an early period, but as showing that we 
must not rely too confidently on the silence of Eusebius. The 
Apocalypse is one of the books about the use of which, in 
conformity with his rule, the historian was to furnish us with 
extracts, and yet, owing perhaps to his contempt for Papias, 


1 See the passages quoted in Charteris, Canonicity, pp. 338 sq. See 
also de Gebhardt and Harnack, Patr. Apost. Opera, fasc. i. p. 189. 

* As given in its original form by Haussleiter in the Theol. Litteraturbl., 
1895. I take this from Corssen, Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1901, p. 219. 

* Nam et anterior Papias....et Nepos .... de mille annorum regno 
ita ut Victorinus senserunt. Quoted by Haussleiter, “Die Kommentare 
des Victorinus, Tichonius und Hieronymus zur Apokalypse,” in the Zeitschr. 
7. kirch. Wiss. und kirchl, Leben, vii., 1886, p. 243 note. 


. ae 


KNEW JOHANNINE WRITINGS 237 


resulting in a superficial knowledge of that father’s writings, 
he has passed over a valuable statement. 

Eusebius, however, is not wholly silent about the use of the 
Johannine writings. He expressly says that Papias “has used 
testimonies from the former Epistle of John, and from that of 
Peter similarly.”1 This statement means that Papias quoted 
these Epistles, but without naming the authors; and the 
natural inference is that he quoted them as well-known works, 
which did not require a reference to identify them. It is 
reasonable to conclude that 1 John had been for some time 
in circulation ; and this again furnishes, not a proof, but one 
more little item of probability in favour of the early date of 
the Gospel. 

The value of this testimony has been called in question 
on the plea that Eusebius’ judgment or accuracy cannot be 
depended upon. But there is really no ground for this 
scepticism. So far as we are able to test the assertions of 
the historian by reference to extant works, we find that they 
are correct, and we therefore trust him in regard to writings 
which are no longer before us. We must, however, make a 
distinction. In a vast mass of literature some allusions might 
be overlooked or forgotten, and an author might, without 
exposing himself to a charge of culpable carelessness, make 
a negative statement which was not altogether correct. An 
instance of this occurs in Eusebius. He says that no 
ecclesiastical writer used testimonies out of the Preaching 
or the Apocalypse of Peter”; and yet he himself tells us in 
a later part of his history, that Clemens Alexandrinus 
included the Apocalypse of Peter in his short comments on 
the books of Scripture in the Institutions. He has altogether 


1 H. E., iii. 39, end. Κέχρηται δ᾽ ὁ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου 
προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς, καὶ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως. ᾿ 


2 H. E£., iii. 3, beginning. 3 vi. 14. 


238 PAPIAS 


overlooked the fact that Clement refers to the Preaching of 
Peter in five different parts of the Stromata, and gives some 

long extracts from it. This kind of oversight, however, 15 
very different from a distinct statement that a writer has 
cited a book which he has not cited; and in connection with 
the Epistles of Peter and John we have an instance of his 
caution which is worth noticing. In speaking of Poly- 
carp he says that in his Epistle to the Philippians “he has 
used certain testimonies from the First Epistle of Peter,”+ but 
he makes no reference to the supposed citation from the First 
Epistle of John. That citation may admit of doubt, but the 
quotations from 1 Peter are numerous and unmistakable. 
It is therefore a legitimate inference from Eusebius’ state- 
ment that the quotations in Papias from 1 John were of such 
a character as to leave no reasonable doubt of their source. 

— This will be the most suitable place to examine the nature 
of Eusebius’ testimony. The historian quotes what Papias 
relates about the origin of the first two Gospels, and alleges 
that he made use of the First Epistle of John, but passes over 
the Fourth Gospel in absolute silence. From these facts it 
has been inferred that Papias made no use of the Johannine 
Gospel, and probably was not acquainted with it. At first 
sight this looks like a strong argument, but all depends on the 
purpose and the practice of Eusebius in adducing quotations 
from ancient writers. This subject has been exhaustively 
examined by Lightfoot in his essay on “The Silence of — 
Eusebius”’; and the results appear to me so conclusively 
established that I will refer the reader for details to that 
article, and merely summarize here the principal points. 
Eusebius lays down for himself two distinct modes of dealing 
with early references to the New Testament Scriptures accord- 
ing as the several books were disputed, or were universally 


1H E., iv. 14, end. Essays on Supernatural Religion, ii. 


SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS 239 


acknowledged. He will state what ecclesiastical writers have 
made use of any of the antilegomena, specifying which of 
these they used; and he will tell what they have said about 
the acknowledged Scriptures, and also about those that are 
not such. This clearly means that, while he will mark any 
quotations from the disputed books and present any informa- 
tion which he may find about them, he will not think it 
necessary to say that such and such writers have used the 
books about which no question has arisen, but will confine 
himself to anecdotes or particular information regarding 
them. His practice corresponds with his intention. He 
alludes to many authors whose writings we possess, and he 
passes over without notice abundant and express quotations 
from the acknowledged books, while he collects scraps of 
information about them, and remarks on the use of the 
antilegomena. One example may suffice. Theophilus of 
Antioch quotes the Fourth Gospel under the name of John. 
Eusebius mentions the three books addressed to Autolycus, 


1H. Ε΄, iii. 3. See also 24, end. The former passage runs thus :— 
ὑποσημήνασθαι τίνες τῶν κατὰ χρόνους ἐκκλησιαστικῶν συγγραφέων ὅποίαις 
κέχρηνται τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων, τίνα τε περὶ τῶν ἐνδιαθήκων καὶ ὁμολογουμένων 
γραφῶν, καὶ ὅσα περὶ τῶν μὴ τοιούτων αὐτοῖς εἴρηται. It is hardly worth 
while referring to the eccentric mode οὗ accentuation adopted by Jannaris 
(Contemporary Review, January 1903, p. 38), τινά τε, instead of τίνα, which 
the context suggests, which is given, not only by older editors, but by 
Schwartz, and was clearly followed by the Syrian translator, The Syriac, 
though not quite literal, is unmistakable, “how it has been said by them 
concerning holy Scriptures which the Church confesses without doubt, 
and concerning those which are not such.” The translation of Rufinus is 
too loose to be of service. I think no wise man would build an argument 
on the proposed change of accent. See, further, Eusebius, Hzst., v. 8, 
where he refers to his promise to record the sayings of the older writers, 
in which they have committed to writing the traditions which have come 
down to them about the canonical Scriptures. As he then proceeds to 
quote what Irenzeus says about the Gospels, this passage seems decisive 
against limiting γραφῶν to the Epistles of Peter and Paul, as Jannaris 
proposes to do in a subsequent article. 

2 Ad Autol., ii. 22. 


240 PAPIAS 


but says not a word about the quotation from John. He 
mentions also a work against Marcion, no longer extant, in | 
which Theophilus must have expressed his views about the 
Gospels and Pauline Epistles; but on this subject our historian 
says not a word. He refers, however, to a work now lost, 
against Hermogenes, and in this he says Theophilus “has 
used testimonies from the Apocalypse of John.”* This is an 
excellent illustration of the plan which he regularly follows ; 
and Lightfoot points out that even “as regards the anecdotes 
containing information relating to the books of the New 
Testament, he restricts himself to the narrowest limits which 
justice to his subject will allow,” quoting, for instance, the 
principal passage from Irenzus, but omitting “to mention 
others which contain interesting statements directly or in- 
directly affecting the question.”” His treatment of 1 Peter 
and 1 John forms an exception to the rule, for they are 
among the undisputed books, and therefore the mere fact of 
their use by certain writers ought not to be noticed. But 
there is a reason for the exception. They were included 
among the Catholic Epistles, most of which were of disputed 
authenticity, and Eusebius may have thought it best to apply 
the same principles to the whole collection, and thus to make 
it clear that the two acknowledged Epistles stood on a different ) 
basis from the rest. : 
It follows from the above facts that, notwithstanding the 
silence of Eusebius, Papias may have quoted the Fourth Gospel 
to any extent, and called it by its present title, and the only 
inference which we are justified in drawing from our want of 
information is that he did not record any traditions respecting 


Matthew and Mark. 


the origin of the Gospel, such as he has given in the case of | 
An argument of a different kind, however, has been put | 


1 H, E., iv. 24. 2 P. 48. 


SILENCE OF IRENAUS 241 


forward with much confidence by Corssen,! and adopted with 
equal confidence by Professor Bacon.2 The former states 
that Irenzeus had pressing occasion to speak of the credentials 
of the Gospel, for he mentions his opponents, who, in rejecting 
it as an heretical work, and denying its apostolic authorship? 
maintained the right of historical tradition. Yet he has 
nothing to say on the subject, thus proving that he had no 
tradition to depend upon. And especially he could find no 
information in Papias; for he seems to make use of him in 
regard to Matthew and Mark, but has nothing to tell about 
Luke and John; and the inevitable inference is that Papias’ 
work contained not a syllable about them. The argument, 
thus stated, seems very strong; and yet I think it entirely 
melts away on nearer examination. 

In the first place, Irenzeus does not say that anyone denied 
the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. In the passage where 
he speaks of those who rejected it, he refers first to Marcion, 
who, rejecting the whole Gospel, boasted that he had part of 
it (ue. aS previously explained, he acknowledged only a 
mutilated Luke); then he adds that others (besides the 
Marcionites), in order to frustrate the gift of the Spirit, did 
not admit the Gospel of John. Now we have no reason for 
supposing that Marcion rejected the Fourth Gospel because it 
was a spurious work; on the contrary, we have some ground 
for thinking that he disliked it, not only through doctrinal 
considerations, but because he believed that it was the work 
of John, one of the Judaic apostles. Similarly some few 


1 Monarchianische Prologe, in Texte und Unters., xv., 1896. 

2 “Recent Aspects of the Johannine Problem,” in the Hibbert Journal, 
April 1903. 

3 Dem Apostel absprachen. 4 Pp. 104 sqq. 

5 Pp. 110 844. In his later article he limits his conclusion to the state- 
ment that Papias knew of nothing to record respecting the composition 
of the Third and Fourth Gospels (Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1901, PP 222 sqq.). 

I 


242 | PAPIAS 


others may have rejected it without calling its authorship in 
question, though at a later time, in order to avoid the scandal 


of reprobating an Apostle, those who would not accept it 


ascribed it to Cerinthus. Of this later ascription there is no 
mention in Ireneus, and I am not aware that he anywhere 
tells us that the authorship of any Gospel was called in 
question. Different sects had their preferences, and adopted a 


canon to suit their views. For instance, the Ebionites used 


only the Gospel of Matthew; and they rejected the Epistles of 
Paul, not because they were spurious, but because he was an 
apostate from the law! But not only does Irenzus fail to 
make any reference to questioned authorship, but he tells us 
expressly how the heretics did really get rid of the authority 
of the Gospels. Some affirmed that the Apostles had 
mixed up the legal sentiments in the teaching of Christ, and 
even that the Lord himself had spoken under different 
kinds of inspiration.2 Similarly they declared that the 
Apostles had preached the Gospel while they still entertained 
Jewish sentiments, but that they themselves were purer and 
wiser than the Apostles. This was the reason why Marcion 
rejected all but his mutilated Luke. Others acknowledged 
the Scriptures, but changed the interpretations. Another 
mode of escape was found in an appeal to oral tradition, 
without which the Scriptures were unintelligible® And 


lastly, recourse was had to the notion that the Apostles — 


adapted their teaching to the capacity of their hearers or 
even that the Saviour himself had taught an esoteric doctrine 
in riddles and parables.’ Surely the correct inference from 
this mode of treatment is that Irenzeus was not aware that he 


1 Tren., Her., τ. xxvi. 2; Euseb., H. E., iii. 27. 


2 III. il. 2. 3 ΤΙ], xii. 12, 


* Ib, Also 1. iii. 6, viii. 1; and for examples, see especially 1. iii., ix., 
XVili.—xx. 


δ᾽ 1 σπ apes 7 I, EXvil. 2 


SILENCE OF IRENZUS 243 


had to defend the genuineness of the Gospel against an attack 
upon its authorship. Even in the famous and foolish argu- 
ment about the four Gospels, he betrays no knowledge that 
authorship was called in question, and his sole object is to 
prove that four is the proper canonical number. For him, 
then, as has been said before, no Johannine question existed. 
Like a good churchman, he accepted the four Gospels which 
had been handed down to him, and never thought of doubting, 
or having to prove, their authenticity. He dismisses those 
who, in addition to the Marcionites, rejected the Fourth 
Gospel with a few contemptuous lines; and if some obscure 
dogmatic cranks had asserted at that time that the Gospel was 
the work of Cerinthus, he would no more have thought it 
necessary to confute them than we should feel obliged to 
answer an assertion that the Seat of Authority in Religion 
was the work of Spurgeon. 

Secondly, the argument in reference to Papias appears to 
me quite invalid. Irenzeus! may have made use of Papias’ 
statements about Matthew and Mark; but there is really no 
proof that he did so. His statements are not quoted from 
that writer; and although he had to defend the authority of 
these Gospels against the great Marcionite school, he makes 
no appeal to any earlier writer, or to any kind of historical 
attestation. He states briefly what was generally believed, 
and it seems never to occur to him that anyone will call it in 
question. And again, instead of telling us nothing about 
John, he tells almost as much as he does about Matthew and 
Mark; for he says that he published the Gospel after the 
other three, while he was living in Ephesus. There is no 
appearance of his having invented this; and if he did not 
derive it from Papias, he must have relied upon general 
tradition and belief. Surely this simple account bears far 


ay aay ς 


244 PAPIAS 


more clearly the stamp of history than some story full of 
details about the occasion and manner of its publication. If 
Papias had told this, and no more, I hardly think Eusebius 
would have thought it worth mentioning; but if it was a fact 
universally believed in Asia Minor when Papias wrote, I do 
not suppose he would have thought of recording it. The case 
of Matthew and Mark was very different. They came from 
distant parts, and the statement about them probably con- 
tained information as new as it was interesting. 

I think, therefore, that this latest argument in proof of the 
silence of Papias is founded on misapprehension. On the 
other hand, there is some little probability that, if Papias 
based his work exclusively on Matthew and Mark, we 
should have had some intimation of a fact, which must 
have struck his readers of a later time as peculiar and worthy 
of notice. 

Finally, we must consider for a moment a curious argument 
which is relied upon by Corssen.1 While admitting that 
Papias knew the Fourth Gospel, and even ascribed it to the 
Apostle, he contends that he had no external testimony to 
support his belief, and that, consequently, Christian antiquity 
at large had none; and he strengthens this argument by 
maintaining that if the Apostle really reported the absurd — 
saying about the vines, he cannot have been the author of 
the Fourth Gospel. But we may fairly reply that the latter 
tradition rests upon mere hearsay, leaving room for all sorts 
of confusion; and surely we may feel certain that the saying 
was not ascribed to Christ by one of his most intimate dis- 
ciples. A general belief in the authorship of a book is of a 
totally different kind. Who ever thinks of looking for strong 
attestation before accepting a book as. genuine? If it was — 
the general belief in Asia Minor, that the Gospel was the — 

1 Zeitschr. f. neut. Wrss., 1901, pp. 224 864. | 


KNOWLEDGE OF FOURTH GOSPEL 245 


work of John, at a time when numbers of men were living 
who could have given it an authoritative contradiction, we 
can hardly look for any stronger attestation, for it is not 
usual for authors to sign, seal, and deliver their books in the 
presence of chosen witnesses. In a word, particular stories 
retailed by a man like Papias are far less trustworthy than a 
general belief which was accepted as a matter of course, and 
was not supposed to require any authority to substantiate it. 
This being the case, it becomes interesting to inquire what 
traces there are of Papias’ acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel. 
We must refer, in the first place, to a passage in Irenzeus, in 
which an ancient interpretation of the saying in John xiv. 2 
has been rescued from oblivion. It occurs in V. xxxvi. I, 2, 
and the Greek, which in this instance is important, has been 
preserved.’ It runs as follows:—“ As the Presbyters say (ὡς 
of πρεσβύτεροι λέγουσι), Then also [ve, at the restoration 
of all things] they who have been deemed worthy of the life 
in heaven shall go thither, but others shall enjoy the luxury 
of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city ; 
for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen, as they who see 
him shall be worthy.? But that there is this difference (εἶναι 
δὲ τὴν διαστολὴν) of the dwelling of those who bear fruit the 
hundred-fold, and of those [who bear] the sixty, and of those 
[who bear] the thirty?; of whom some shall be taken up into 
the heavens, others shall live in Paradise, others shall inhabit 
the city; and that on this account the Lord said, that in 
the abode of my Father are many mansions; for all things 


1 See Stieren’s notes. 

2 It is to be observed that so far the words are in the direct construction, 
χωρήσουσιν, etc.; but from this point the construction changes into the 
indirect. 

3 Τὰ ἑκατὸν, etc., clearly pointing to the Gospels, where the article does 
not occur, and treating the parable as well known. This point is lost in 
Lightfoot’s translation : Essays, p. 194. 


246 PAPIAS 


are of God, who affords to all the suitable dwelling As his 
word says, that division was made to all by the Father, 
according as everyone is or shall be worthy.? And this is 
the feast-table, at which they shall recline who feast when 
invited to the wedding. The Presbyters, disciples of the 
Apostles, say that this is the arrangement and disposition of 
those who are saved, and that through steps of this kind 
they advance, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, but 
through the Son to the Father, the Son in succession yielding 
his work to the Father, as also has been said by the Apostle, 
‘since he must reign until he put all enemies under his 
feet.’” 

On this passage we may remark, first, that it is in all 
probability derived from some written source. This is 
shown by the repeated use of the present tense, “the 
Presbyters say.” This is the language of a man who has a 
book before him, not of one who is recalling to memory words 
which he once heard from men long ago deceased. The same 
conclusion follows from the length of the passage, combined 
with the change from the direct to the indirect construction ; 
for this implies that Ireneus at first quotes his authority 
exactly, and then, for the sake of brevity, contents himself 
with giving the substance. If he had been writing from his 
own recollection merely, he would naturally have used the 
same construction, and that probably the indirect throughout. 
Secondly, the clause relating to the “many mansions” belongs 
to the report of the elders. This is proved, not only by the 
repetition of “the elders say” towards the close of the 


1 Here ends the Greek. The last clause is as follows: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο 
εἰρηκέναι τὸν Κύριον, ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Πατρός μου μονὰς εἶναι πολλάς. τὰ πάντα γὰρ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃς τοῖς πᾶσι τὴν ἁρμόζουσαν οἴκησιν παρέχει. The words in Jn. xiv. 
2 are ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ Πατρός μου μοναὶ πολλαί εἰσιν. 

2 This may possibly refer to the parable of the talents or of the pounds, 
or it may be a traditional saying. 


KNOWLEDGE OF FOURTH GOSPEL 247 


quotation, but by the indirect construction; for if Irenzeus 
intended simply to insert an expression of his own opinion, he 
would of course have made use of the indicative mood. 
Thirdly, the authority which is cited is in all probability the 
work of Papias. I had come to this conclusion before the 
appearance of Lightfoot’s articles; but he presents the reasons 
for it with great clearness and force! They are mainly these: 
—(1) The passage accords with the method of Papias, and with 
the subject of his expositions. (2) No other work before the 
time of Irenzus satisfies the conditions. (3) The connection 
with a previous passage,” in which Irenzeus expressly refers to 
Papias as his authority, is important. The subject of the two 
passages is the same, and they both treat it from the same 
point of view. The authorities are described in similar terms ; 
and at the beginning of the later passage “the elders” are 
referred to without further description, and we therefore 
naturally suppose that they are the same as the previously 
mentioned “elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord.” 
And lastly, “the subject is continuous from the one to the 
other, though it extends over four somewhat long chapters 
(cc. 33-36).” Lightfoot also adduces the references to 
Papias in the “Hexaemeron” of Anastasius of Sinai, and 
in the Catena on the Apocalypse, bearing the names of 
(icumenius and Arethas which serve to strengthen the prob- 
ability reached upon other grounds; but for the argument 
based upon these I may be content to refer to his own 
pages. 

The reasonable inference from these facts is that Papias 
recorded a traditional interpretation of a saying of Christ's 
which is found only in the Fourth Gospel. It might be that 
the saying as well as the interpretation had come down by 
oral tradition, and had not yet been incorporated in the 


1 Essays, p. 197 84η. 2 vy, XxXili. 4. 


248 , PAPIAS 


Gospel!; and in favour of this view it might be pointed out 
that the words are not quite the same as those in the Gospel. 
I do not think, however, that any stress can be laid upon the 
verbal difference; for the characteristic words, which alone 
are important for the subject, are the same, and the change 
consists in substituting for one form of expression another 
which is strictly synonymous, and which is found in Luke 1]. 
49. This kind and amount of alteration is quite in accordance 
with patristic usage. On the other hand, it seems likely that 
the “Dominical Oracles” which Papias expounded were con- 
tained in well-known books. Here the silence of Eusebius 
may be of some use to us. If Papias habitually quoted 
sayings which are not in our Gospels, but were either of 
unknown origin, or derived from some of the known 
apocryphal books, our historian, in accordance with his usual 
practice, would have noticed this fact; and I think we may 
justly conclude that there was nothing in the quotations 
which struck Eusebius as peculiar and calling for remark. 
Further, we know that Papias had writings which were 
ascribed to Matthew and Mark; and we have just seen in 
Trenzus’ extract how the parable of the Sower is referred 
to as though the readers were sure to be quite familiar with 
it. When, therefore, a saying which is now found in the 
Fourth Gospel is cited as though everyone would be certain 
to recognize it, we may reasonably presume that that saying 
was contained in some accepted book, and that that book 


1 So Corssen (Monarch. Prol., pp. 109 sq.). His remark that the 
Presbyters could hardly have shown more certainly that they had no 
connection with the author of the Gospel, who did not refer to the different 
grades of blessedness, is scarcely sustained by the general character of 
ancient exegesis. In his later article Corssen withdraws from this position, 
and maintains that, in presence of the fact that the presbyters agree with 
the Gospel, the vague possibility of their dependence on another source is 
not very convincing. See Zettsch. f. neut. Wiss, 1901, p. 214. 


KNOWLEDGE OF FOURTH GOSPEL 249 


was the Gospel which is so closely allied to the first Epistle 
of John. | 

I fear that in spite of the rather favourable opinion of Mr 
Burkitt,? small importance can be attached to a curious 
statement, at least in its present form, that, according to 
Papias, the Gospel was written after the Apocalypse, and 
given to the churches in Asia by John, while he was still in 
the body, and that Papias himself wrote it from the dictation 
of John. This is said to have been contained in Papias’ 
“ exoterica, that is, in the last five books (or, at the end of the 
five books, in extremis quinque libris).” A portion of this 
statement is given, without any authority, in a Greek proem 
to a Catena.2 The complete statement is contained in two 
Latin codices, one in the Vatican and one in Madrid.* 

The value of this alleged citation is, as Harnack points out,° 


1 Harnack admits the probability that Papias was acquainted with the 
Gospel, and used it like the other Gospels, as a source for the sayings of 
the Lord (Chronol., p. 336, in the note). Corssen also, departing from his 
former opinion, is convinced that Papias was acquainted with the Gospel 
(Zettsch. f. neut. Wiss., 1901, pp. 212 sqq.). 

2 Two Lectures on the Gospels, 1901, pp. 67 844. and 90 sqq. 

3 Ἰωάννης. . . ὑπηγόρευσε Td εὐαγγέλιον τῷ ἑαυτοῦ μαθητῇ Mania. Quoted 
by Burkitt from Corderius, p. 68. 

4 They are both quoted in Wordsworth and White’s Novwm Testamentum 
Domini nostri Jesu Christi latine secundum editionem sancti Hieronymr. The 
important part may be quoted “ex cod. Regine Suetiz, printed from the 
edition of Thomasius, Opp. i., p. 344; Rome, 1747” :—“ Evangelium 
Johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab Johanne adhuc in corpore 
constituto ; sicut Papias nomine, Hieropolitanus, discipulus Johannis carus, 
in exotericis, id est in extremis quinque libris retulit ; descripsit vero 
evangelium dictante Johanne recte.” This passage occurs with unimportant 
variations, due perhaps to its being independently translated from the 
Greek, in a Prologue to John contained in the Codex Toletanus. This 
manuscript is assigned to the tenth century by W. and W. in the Preface, 
p. xiii, but this is corrected to the ninth in the Epilogus, p. 708, while 
Gregory puts it back to the eighth (Proleg. to Tisch., p. 991. The quotations 
in W. and W. are on pp. 490 and 491). 

5 Chronol., p. 665. 


250 PAPIAS 


vitiated by its singular deficiencies. The statement that John 
published the Gospel while he was living is nonsense as it 
stands, for no one could suppose that he published it when he 
was dead And again, John is not characterized, so that we 
cannot tell whether the Apostle is meant. It is even more 
serious that the five books have a title otherwise unknown; 
and it has been conjectured that the “exoterica” may have 
been an addition to the original work, made with the intention 
of claiming the authority of Papias for all kinds of apocryphal 
stories.2 We must add the extreme improbability that a 
statement of this importance should never be alluded to by 
ancient writers, even if Eusebius was led to neglect it by his 


contemptuous estimate of Papias. Mr Burkitt is convinced, by 


a comparison of the texts, that St Jerome, in his “De Viris 
illustribus,” borrowed from the document represented to us by 
the Prologue in the Codex Toletanus?; but if so we must 
conclude either that the passage about Papias was wanting or 
that Jerome did not believe it to be authentic.t Except for 
the reference to “five books,” and to Hierapolis, there might 
seem to be much probability in the conjecture of Corssen that 
“ Papias” is an error for “ Prochorus,” the ostensible author of 
the romantic πράξεις τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ 
Ἰωάννου τοῦ θεολόγου, a work which is assigned to the first 
half of the fifth century.® Lightfoot’s emendations and con- 


1 Might not the phrase, however, mean simply that he was still living 
at so late a date? Compare Eusebius’ ἔτι τῷ βίῳ ἐνδιατρίβοντα (H. L., 
iii. 18). 

2 See the note to fragment xix. of Papias in Patrwm Apostolicorwm Opera, 
by de Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn; also Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel., 
pp. 210 sq., who refutes the conjecture. See before, p. 228 sq. 

noe eee 

* Can Jerome, by his “tantum” in the article on Papias, “quinque tantum 
scripsit volumina,” intend quietly to set aside some spurious volumes ? 

5 See Moniarchianische Prologe zu den vier Evangelien, 1896, in Teate u. 


Unters., xv. 1, pp. 114 sqg. The conjecture is repeated in the Zettsch. f. neut. 


Wiss., 1901, p. 224. 


KNOWLEDGE OF FOURTH GOSPEL 251 


jectures, however, render the statement as it stands much less 
improbable than it appears to be at first sight. “The word 
‘exotericis, ” he says, “ought plainly to be read ‘exegeticis, " 
and “extremis, which should perhaps be externis, is the Latin 
interpretation of the false reading cxoterzcis. Thus purged of 
errors, the reference to Papias presents no difficulties. We 
may suppose that Papias, having reported some saying of St 
John on the authority of the elders, went on somewhat as 
follows: ‘And this accords with what we find in his own 
Gospel, which he gave to the Churches when he was still in 
the body.’ ... In this contrast between the story repeated 
after his death and the Gospel taken down from his lips 
during his lifetime, we should have an explanation of the 
words adhuc im corpore constituto, which otherwise seem 
altogether out of place.” The statement that Papias wrote 
down the Gospel may, he thinks, have arisen from mistaking 
ἀπέγραφον, the third person plural, for the first person singular. 
Eusebius, he believes, would not have repeated an incidental 
reference of this kind! I think, however, that till we have 
fuller knowledge, this item of evidence cannot safely be relied 
upon, though in its emended form it does not seem intrinsically 
improbable. 

Before concluding this long notice of Papias I must consider 
an argument which is relied upon by Corssen.” In a passage 
in which Irenzus is reasoning against the opinion that Jesus 
taught for only one year, he advances the strange notion that 
he taught for more than twenty years.® He proves that 
Christ taught for more than one year by enumerating the 
Passovers in the Fourth Gospel. He then contends that 
Jesus, to be a perfect teacher, must have had experience of 


1 Essays on Sup. Rel., pp. 210 sqq. 
2 Monarch. Prol., pp. 106 sqg. Also in the Zeit. f. newt. Wiss., 1901, pp. 
202 sqq. at ap oo 


252 ΡΑΡΙΑΒ 


every age, and therefore before his death was an elder among 
elders. Now one declines into the elder age from the fortieth 
and fiftieth year, at which our Lord taught; “as the Gospel 
and all the Presbyters bear witness who in Asia met with 
John the disciple of the Lord, that John handed down these 
things. For he remained with them till the times of Trajan. 
But some of them saw not only John, but also other apostles, 
and heard these same things from them, and testified about 
a relation of this kind.” He then appeals in confirmation of 
this to the objection of the Jews in John viii. 57, that Jesus 
was not yet fifty years old, and argues that such words could 
be addressed only to one who was evidently more than forty, 
and probably not far from fifty. Corssen thinks, with great 
probability, that the testimony of the elders was contained 
in Papias. Then he draws the conclusion, from the way in 
which the testimony is used, that the Presbyters cannot have 
made any mention of the Gospel on this occasion. Irenzus 
treats the Gospel and the Presbyters as affording two indepen- 
dent testimonies, which would not have been the case if both 
were supposed to rest on the authority of the same man, and 
emphasises that of the latter more strongly than that of the 
former; and he even appeals to the fact that some of the 
Presbyters had seen other apostles as well as John, showing 
that these had only oral tradition to rely upon. Finally 
Corssen produces a “yet stronger” argument which seems to 
me to shatter his whole contention. The statement of the 
Presbyters goes decidedly beyond that of the Gospel. Pre- 
cisely ; the Gospel was not sufficient to prove what Irenzeus 
wanted. The statement made by the Jews (not by the 
historian), which is assumed by Irenzus to be correctly 
reported, required an interpretation; and by the evangelist 


1 Corssen, with great probability, thinks et quinquagesimo is a later 
insertion made by some copyist or reader. 


KNOWLEDGE OF FOURTH GOSPEL 253 


it is neither interpreted nor certified as conveying a correct 
impression. The natural explanation of the whole discussion 
is that the Presbyters gave what they believed to be John’s 
own explanation of the passage in the Gospel, and in relation 
to so surprising a statement it was quite in place to appeal 
to the authority of other apostles as well. Irenzus, by 
accepting Luke’s chronology, involves himself in insuperable 
difficulties; but the elders are not responsible for this. Apart 
from Luke’s somewhat uncertain statement we know nothing 
of Christ’s age. Matthew gives the impression that he was 
born considerably before the death of Herod, and the testimony 
of the elders is simply that Jesus was older at the time of his 
death than is usually supposed, and than Luke’s informant 
believed. It seems probable that Papias recorded their testi- 
mony in connection with the passage in the Fourth Gospel. 
In viewing the whole of the evidence bearing on Papias, 
I am quite aware that it is precarious; but as I have often 
had occasion to remark, evidence does not cease to be 


1 Corssen himself, in his later article, retracts his previous opinion, and 
thinks that Papias and his Presbyters derived their view from the Gospel 
(pp. 214-221). Perhaps I ought to refer to a curious statement of an 
anonymous writer, of the year 810, who informs us that he had found 
the following passage in the commentaries of Victorinus :—“We have 
found in the parchments of Bishop Alexander, who was in Jerusalem, what 
he copied with his own hand from the exemplars of the apostles.” Then 
follow statements of the consulships under which Jesus was born, baptized, 
and crucified, giving the years 9, 46, and 58 (Zeit. f. neut. Wiss., 1901, 
p- 218). Why exemplars of the apostles in Jerusalem should mean the 
work of Papias I do not know ; but if they do, it would certainly appear 
that he was as ignorant as he was credulous. It is strange that anyone 
should know the names of the Consuls, and yet be ignorant of the date of 
Pilate’s Procuratorship. This, however, has no very obvious bearing on our 
question. I may remark that a modern investigation brings the age of 
Jesus very close to forty. Mr Thomas Lewin places the nativity in B.c. 6, 
and the crucifixion in A.D. 33 (in his Fasti Sacri; or, a Key to the Chronology 
of the New Testament). I take the statement from a notice of the work in 
the Journal of Sacred Literature, January 1866, pp. 470 sqq. 


254 PAPIAS 


evidence because it is not of overpowering force. It is pre- 
cisely among these delicate probabilities that criticism has to 
make its way, and it is not its part to wield a bludgeon when 
a dissecting knife is required. Only a few fragments have 
survived of the works of Papias, and the evidence afforded 
by these fragments is of the most casual description. But 
from what has been said, I think we must conclude that, if 
we take the case of Papias by itself, the probabilities, when 
fairly and carefully balanced, are for, and not against, his use 
of the Fourth Gospel. When taken in connection with other 
evidence, it becomes more important, because it confirms 
anticipations which that other evidence induced us to form. 


CHAPTER VI 


THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS; THE EPISTLES OF BARNABAS 
AND IGNATIUS; AND JOHN XXI. 24. 


Dr C. Taytor has produced an interesting argument to show 
that the “Shepherd of Hermas” recognizes four Gospels. The 
Church is represented as seated on a bench with four feet, so 
that it stands securely; “for the world also is compacted of 
four elements.”! This reason, which Harnack describes as 
“mere inepta,” ? ceases to be so when Dr Taylor brings it into 
connection with the celebrated passage in Irenzeus about the 
necessity for four, and only four, Gospels. The spiritual 
creation corresponded with the physical in resting on a four- 
fold basis. The allusion is undoubtedly obscure; but this is 
quite in accordance with the manner of Hermas. Dr Taylor 
presents in detail a number of resemblances in thought and 
expression between Hermas and the Fourth Gospel. These are 
hardly such as, by themselves, to prove a literary dependence ; 
but when we consider them in combination with the general 
historical probability, established by what we know of the 
state of belief in the next generation, and with the apparent 
allusion to the four Gospels, we must admit that we have 
some indication that the Johannine Gospel was already 
incorporated in a collection which was regarded as the basis 
of the Church.? 


= Ἰ510; TI. Xili, 3. 2 Quoted by Hilgenfeld, on the passage. 
3 See The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels, by C. Taylor, D.D., 1892. 
255 


256 EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 


We must not pause long upon the Epistle of Barnabas, as I 
think the evidence which it affords is quite neutral. It is 
curious that Keim, who impugns the genuineness of the 
Gospel, insists that it was known to the writer of Barnabas,! 
while Cunningham, whose leanings might naturally be the 
other way, maintains the opposite opinion.” Keim’s view is 
founded upon a number of resemblances in language and ideas, 
some of which are undoubtedly striking, and, if we were sure 
that the Gospel existed at the time, might justly be regarded 
as indications of its influence. On the other hand the doctrine 
of the Logos, at least in connection with that term, is absent, 


although Christ’s pre-existence is clearly taught*; and ὑπο 


most that we can fairly say is that we here have traces 
of Johannine thought and vocabulary which help to show 


that it is at least not an anachronism to assign an early date — 


to the Gospel. 


Dr Martineau, however, insists that there are “differences — 


. which completely separate” the two writers, Barnabas, 
for instance, placing the resurrection and ascension on the same 
day,‘ in accordance with the tradition which is preserved in 
Luke, which he could not have done, “without a hint of 


hesitation, if the Fourth Gospel, with its plain contradiction, © 


had been present to his hand.”*® This appears to me to be 
a very precarious way of deciding on the relative dates of 


books. It assumes a minute criticism and balancing of 


authorities, such as we have no reason for attributing to the 
writer of the Epistle; and if this anonymous author could 


not possibly write anything inconsistent with the Fourth | 


Gospel, if that work had already appeared, how could the 


1 Gesch. Jesu, i. p. 141 sqq. 

2 A Dissertation on the Epistle of Barnabas, gwen with the teat, etc., 1877, 
pp. lxxxviii sq., xciv, 60. 

tb Ὁ: ἘΣ Ὁ: 5 Seat of Authority, p. 206 sqq. 


᾿ 


EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 257 


anonymous author of the Fourth Gospel contradict Luke? 
Moreover, Dr Martineau alleges that the Christology deviates 
from the Pauline type; and if the writer consciously or 
unconsciously deviated from the view of one apostle, he 
might do so from that of another. As the New Testament 
writings represent several stages of theological thought, it 
required a considerable time to frame an ecclesiastical theory 
which seemed to embrace and harmonize them all; and we 
must not forget that an inferior mind, like that of the author 
of the Epistle, does not easily assimilate the ideas of a lofty 
genius. I think, therefore, that it is rash to assert either that 
the Epistle was influenced by the Gospel, or that the Gospel 
must be a later production. 

The allusions or parallels in the Vossian recension of the 
Ignatian Epistles, the one which has the best claim to be 
considered genuine, are more remarkable. In Philadelphians 
vii. are the words, “ For if some persons wished to lead me 
astray in the flesh; yet the Spirit is not led astray, being from 
God; οἷδεν yap πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει. These words 
are verbatim in John ili. ὃ, except that the beginning is οὐκ 
οἶδας. It is difficult to believe that in the use of this notice- 
able expression there is not dependence on one side or the 
other, and it can hardly be questioned that in John the 
connection is more appropriate and original. In the same 
Epistle, ix., αὐτὸς ὧν θύρα τοῦ πατρός, dt ἧς εἰσέρχονται, 
᾿Αβραὰμ, x.7-r., may be a reminiscence of John x. 9, ἐγώ εἶμι ἡ 
θύρα δι᾿ ἐμοῦ ἐάν τις εἰσέλθῃ, κτλ. In Magnesians vii. ὁ κύριος 
ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν nay be based on John viii. 28, 
ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν; and the closing words of the section, 
ἐπὶ ἕνα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς πατρὸς προελθόντα καὶ εἰς 
ἕνα ὄντα καὶ χωρήσαντα, are strongly tinged with Johannine 
doctrine. In the next section we are told that “there is one 


God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, ὅς 
17 


258 EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 


ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών, ὃς κατὰ πάντα 
εὐηρέστησεν τῷ πέμψαντι αὐτόν. 1} Here we have ἃ doctrine of 
the Logos, combined with a possible allusion to John viii. 29, 
ὁ πέμψας me μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστίν... ὅτι ἐγὼ τὰ ἀρεστὰ αὐτῷ ποιῶ 
πάντοτε. We should observe that the use οἵ πέμπω in 
relation to Christ is characteristically and almost exclusively 


Johannine. One other passage requires our attention. In ~ 


Romans vii. we meet with ὕδωρ ζῶν, as in John iv. 10, and 
with ἄρτον θεοῦ... ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ Χριστοῦ . . . Kat πόμα 
... τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, which may be derived from John vi. 33,51, 
55 (where, however, we have πόσις instead of πόμα). These 
coincidences appear to me sufficiently marked and numerous 
to make it probable that the writer of the Epistles was 
acquainted with the Gospel. But whether the writer was 
really Ignatius is far too large a question for us to enter 
upon ; and it is the less incumbent upon us to do so because, 
even if we admit the genuineness of the letters, it may 
be contended with some show of reason that we have no 
evidence of the existence of a Johannine document but only 
of the adoption of phrases which were becoming current in 
the Church, and preparing the way for the developed 
doctrine which was afterwards incorporated in the Fourth 
Gospel. 


_ Freiherr von der Goltz, in an elaborate work, tries to : 
prove that Ignatius, though influenced by Johannine thought, 


was unacquainted with the Gospel.* His argument seems to 
me to rest on a very questionable critical canon, viz., that an 
author will not use a Scriptural expression in a connection of 
his own, or give it an application which the original writer 
1 T follow Lightfoot’s text ; see his note. 
2 Following Lightfoot, the further Johannine expressions being in- 
sufficiently supported. 


3 “TJonatius von Antiochien als Christ und Theologe,” in Texte wnd 
Unters, xii. 3, 1894. 


EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 259 


did not intend, or fail to quote it when he might reasonably 
do so. How many religious writers might be proved by such 
a canon to have been ignorant of the Fourth Gospel. I take 
at random two sermons of Dr Martineau’s on “Christ, the 
Divine Word.” Remove the texts, and it would be hard to 
prove that he had ever heard of the very Gospel whose central 
thought it is his endeavour to illustrate and defend. The 
first contains two or three short phrases from the Gospel; but 
then these may have been current in a Johannine school; and 
two quotations, “He is what he is,” and “I am no Fate,” 
occur, pointing to an apocryphal source, which probably con- 
tained all the phrases apparently borrowed from the Gospel. 
The second has no allusion to the Gospel whatever, but shows 
acquaintance with the Old Testament, and suggests the possi- 
bility of his having seen the Gospel of Matthew. There is 
hardly a trace of Johannine language, and the whole working 
out of the thought is quite independent of the Gospel. Yet 
surely sermons on “Christ, the Divine Word” would be satu- 
rated with the style and thought of the Gospel, if the writer 
had been acquainted with it. If the Ignatian Epistles and the 
Gospel were documents accidentally discovered, and possess- 
ing no history, we might have reasonable doubts about their 
relation to one another, though to my own mind the Epistles 
seem, in phraseology and thought, to betray a later time than 
the Johannine writings. But it is only fair to remember that 
there is an account of them, which professes to be historical ; 
and the fact that Johannine thought and language had made 
themselves felt as far as Antioch, is to that extent con- 
firmatory of the history. I even venture to think that the 
departure from Johannine language, and the occasional en- 
largement of Johannine thought, in the exposition of kindred 
themes, resembling as it does the practice of later writers, 
points to a time when the Johannine document was already 


260 ATTESTATION OF THE GOSPEL 


regarded as authoritative, and a proper source for explanation 
and development. 

We must notice one other testimony before we proceed to 
the views of the heretics. John xxi. 24 declares, “This is 
the disciple who testifies about these things, and wrote these 
things; and we know that his testimony is true.” In these 
words the composition of the Gospel is ascribed to an 
immediate disciple; and though he is not named, I suppose 
no one will doubt that John is intended, for on behalf of him 
alone among the twelve has the claim of authorship ever been 
advanced. Keim alleges that the date of this concluding 
chapter “hardly falls long before the close of the second 
century,’! but he gives no reason for this opinion. The 
chapter is undoubtedly an appendix; but there is no ground, 
except conjecture, for supposing that it was added after the 
publication of the Gospel, and it is most unlikely that it 
would have found its way into all our authorities if it was a 
spurious addition made after the rest of the work had been 
for a considerable time in circulation. It may, however, be 
reasonably questioned whether these words proceeded from 
the author himself or from some of his disciples. This can- 
not be settled with certainty, and we need not discuss it, for 
the decision does not seriously affect our immediate problem.? 
If the verse was written by the author, then the work itself 
professes to be by an apostle®; if it was added by friends at 
the time of publication, possibly after the author’s death, still 
the writers must have had full knowledge of the fact. In 
either case there is direct and wilful misstatement if the book 


1 Gesch. J., 1. p. 137, note 2. 

2 It is fully discussed by Prof. Klopper in en article to be referred 
to presently. 

3 We may compare the statement of Brother Leo,—“He that wrote 
these things saw this many a time, and doth hereby bear witness thereof” 
(Mirror of Perfection, translated by Sekastian Evans, 1899, p. 39). 


ATTESTATION OF THE GOSPEL 261 


was really written long after the last of the apostles was in 
his grave. Men will judge differently of this kind of literary 
fiction ; but I may observe that this is not a statement of the 
kind that might be understood allegorically, or in which the 
intelligent reader might be expected to see the literary 
artifice. If it is not true, it seems clearly intended to deceive; 
and for my part I find it difficult to believe that a book of 
this lofty spiritual type carries a deliberate falsehood on its 
face. If it can be made probable that the note was appended 
a considerable time after the composition of the work, this 
argument will fall to the ground; but till this probability is 
established, I am compelled to believe that we have here a 
very early attestation of the genuineness of the Gospel, and 
that it is very difficult on any just principles of criticism to 
set it aside. 

This conclusion does not seem to me invalidated if we 
suppose the whole of chapter xxi. to be an appendix written 
by a different hand from that of the Evangelist. This view 
of the chapter has been recently advocated by Professor 
Klépper in an elaborate article.’ He admits, on account of 
the diplomatic evidence, that the appendix must have been 
written soon after the Gospel, and was intended to remove 
prejudices which might arise against it owing to its departure 
from the synoptical narrative? But he thinks that the author 
of the appendix did not speak from real knowledge, but based 
his assertion of the truth of the Gospel partly on tradition, 
and partly on references to an eye-witness in the Gospel 
itself, in 1. 14 and xix. 35.3 It appears to me, however, that 
at a time soon after the publication of the Gospel there must 
have been numbers of men who knew perfectly well whether 


1 “Tas 21 Capitel des 4 Evangeliums erliutert,” in the Zett f. Wass, 
Theol., 1899, pp. 337-381. 
a P38. 3 Pie: 


262 TESTIMONY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 


it was a work of John’s or not, and it is difficult to ascribe the 
attestation to mere conjecture, and to suppose that it would 
have been accepted in spite of men’s better knowledge. 
Moreover, the attestation does not ascribe the Gospel to John 
by name, and it is only through the current knowledge of 
the time that the “beloved disciple” has been identified 
with John. 


We have now concluded our examination of witnesses 
belonging to the Catholic Church. We have received a per- 
fectly uniform testimony from all parts of the Christian 
world; and in feeling our way towards the earlier portion of 
the second century we have met traces of the use of the Gospel 
which serve to confirm the fuller evidence of a later time. So 
far, then, as the surviving literature is concerned, Eusebius is 
quite justified in placing the Gospel among the acknowledged 
books, about which there never was any question in the Church. 
But Eusebius had a copious literature, proceeding from the 
early and middle periods of the second century, which has 
long ago perished; and we must conclude that there was 
nothing in that literature which was clearly inconsistent with 
the Johannine authorship of the Gospel. This condition of 
the facts appears to me quite irreconcilable with the sup- 
position that the book was sprung upon the world for the 
first time in the middle of the century. Both the general 
probabilities of the case and the direct evidence, such as it is, 
point to an early date, when there must have been numbers of 
men still living who knew whether John was the author or 
not. But perhaps the heretics will shed a flood of light on 
the misunderstandings of the Church. We must therefore 
turn to them, and ascertain, so far as it is still possible to do 
so, what was their position in relation to this question. | 


CHAPTER VII 
THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES 


THE romance known as the Clementine Homilies is a Jewish- 
Chrstian work, of very uncertain origin and date. Dr 
Mariineau says it was “probably produced at Rome about 
A.D. 160-170,” and this is quite as early a date as can reason- 
ably be assigned to it. Throughout the earlier stages of the 
Johinnine controversy scholars were in possession of only 
eighteen and a half out of twenty Homilies, and it was a 
matter of dispute whether some apparent allusions to the 
Fourth Gospel were really such or not. But in 1837 Dressel 
discovered a manuscript in the Vatican library which con- 
tamed the missing portion. He was unable, however, to 
atiend to it for several years, and the first complete edition 
oi the text did not appear till 1853. ‘Then, in xix. 22, was 
found a reference to John ix. 2, 3, which was generally accepted 
as conclusive. Peter is represented as ascribing various evils to 
nen’s ignorant violation of the divine law, and as using these 
words :—“ Whence also our teacher answered those who asked 
him about the man who was blind? from birth, and recovered 
sight from him, whether this man sinned or his parents that 
he was born blind,’ neither did this man commit any sin nor 


τ Seat of Authority, p. 200. Dom Chapman adopts the view that 
pseudo-Clement wrote after Origen, and indeed probably not long before 
Eusebius. See his note on “Origen and the date of Pseudo-Clement,” 
in the Journal of Theological Studies, iii. pp. 436 sqq. 

2 Πηροῦ, in John τυφλόν. 3 Here τυφλός, as in John. 

263 


264 CLEMENTINE HOMILIES 


his parents, but that through him the power of God* might be 
made manifest, healing the sins of ignorance.” Dr Martineau 
remained unconvinced, and thought that the author of the 
Clementine Homilies and the Evangelist may have used some 
common source. He notices the use of πηρός for τυφλός, in 
agreement with a phrase which is twice employed by Justin 
Martyr,’ and calls attention to the difference of doctrine “ which 
the passage elicits from the man’s congenital blindness.” We 
may observe, however, that πηρός does not occur within the 
limits of the actual quotation, and that the added words, 
“healing the sins of ignorance,” may be the author’s own om- 
ment. If he has perverted the meaning of his authority, he 
is not the last commentator who has been guilty of such an — 
offence.? Still, considering the point of view of the writer, & is 
conceivable that, even if the Fourth Gospel had been long in 
circulation, he did not draw his information directly from it. 
Irenzus‘ tells us that the Ebionites used only the Gospel 
according to Matthew. Now the great majority of the quoia- 
tions in the Clementine Homilies come, with more or less of 
deviation, from this source; and I think it is not improballe 
that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which correspond:d 
on the whole with Matthew, incorporated narratives out of 
the other Gospels, as well as apocryphal elements. This may 
possibly have been the source from which our author drew, 
But we are here in a region of conjecture, where it is impossible 
to come to any certain conclusion. Dr Martineau himself 
admits that the Fourth Gospel was published before this date ; 
and whether an unknown writer of controversial romance made - 
direct use of it or not is a matter of no importance. We 
must pass on to the consideration of the great Gnostic sects. 


1 Ἢ δύναμις instead of τὰ ἔργα. 

2 Apol., i. 22, where, however, the eee Κ reading is πονηρούς, and 
Dial., 69. In neither passage is there any distinct alltatost to the present 
νη ϑαν 3 See before, p. 108 seq. 41h aay. 


CHAPTER VIII 
THE VALENTINIANS 


THE Valentinians are the first among the great schools of 
heretics to demand our attention. The native place of 
Valentinus is uncertain; but it is customary to accept the 
“report” which had reached Epiphanius before he wrote his 
work against heresies, that the heresiarch was born in Egypt, 
and received a Greek education in Alexandria! The same 
writer says that he promulgated his doctrine? in Egypt, where 
remnants of the sect were still to be found; that he preached 
also in Rome, and at last went to Cyprus, where, though he 
had previously been supposed to retain some piety and 
orthodoxy, he finally made shipwreck of his faith* This 
surely does not imply, as Lipsius supposes,* that he was 
regarded as an orthodox teacher in Egypt and Rome, and only 
began to disseminate heretical opinions when he reached 
Cyprus, but rather that he began in Egypt, and carried on the 
work in Rome, though still retaining some genuine Christian 
belief, and only in Cyprus did he cast off the last semblance 
of orthodox faith. Epiphanius’ statement, therefore, is not 
inconsistent with that of Irenzeus,®> that “Valentinus came to 
Rome in the time of Hyginus, and flourished under Pius, and 
remained there till the time of Anicetus,” although we may 
fully admit that this is intended to define the period of his 


Her., xxxi. 2. 2 ’Emoiqoato τὸ κήρυγμα. , ez, 
4 Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv. 1077. § III. iv. 3. 
265 


266 | THE VALENTINIANS 


prominent heretical activity. The date thus determined is 
the most important point for our present discussion. If | 
Irenzeus is correct, and this we have no reason to doubt, — 


Valentinus was in Rome between A.D. 188 and 160. But we 
do not know when his works were written, and they may 
have appeared after the middle of the second century. We 
are probably safe in saying that he must have been born at 
least as early as 110, and, if not a Christian by descent, must 
have become one some time before 138. 

It is important to observe that Valentinus had some very 
able successors, and that the sect was divided into two schools, 
known as the Eastern and the Italian,| which were dis- 
tinguished by certain varieties of doctrine. It will be 
sufficient here to mention two prominent teachers, Ptolemeeus 
and Heracleon, both belonging to the Italian school. The 
former was a contemporary of Irenzus, and at the head of 
the party whose opinions principally attracted his attention.? 
The latter was apparently somewhat later, and is alluded to 
by Clement of Alexandria, about a.D. 193, as “the most 
notable of the school of Valentinus.”* Clement here quotes 
from him, with approval, a long and sensible comment on the 
passage in Luke ‘about confessing Christ, in the midst of which 
Mark viii. 38 is inserted, whether from the use of a harmony 
or from failure of memory. Whether this extract was taken 
from a commentary on Luke we are not informed; but that 
Heracleon wrote a commentary on John seems evident from 
Origen’s repeated quotations from him in his own commentary. 


1 Hippol., Ref., vi. 35. 2 See Irenzeus’ Preface, 2. 

3 Strom., iv. 9, Ῥ. 595. 4 xii, 8 Sa 

δ These may be seen collected in Grabe, Spictlegiwm SS. Patrum, etc., 
il. pp. 85 sqqg. and 237; in Stieren’s Irenzus, i. 938 844. ; corrected and 
enlarged by Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, 1884, pp. 472 sqg.; and A. E. 
Brooke, ‘The Fragments of Heracleon, newly edited from the MSS. with 
an Introduction and Notes,” in Texts and Studies, i, 4, Cambridge, 1891. 


————" - ~ ae 


TESTIMONY OF IREN AUS 267 


Origen describes him as “said to be an acquaintance! of 
Valentinus.”2 There is no reason for supposing that 
Heracleon was too young to have learned from Valentinus 
himself; for Irenzeus alludes to him as though he had already 
become known as a leader of the heresy.* At all events the 
succession of teachers is quite continuous from some time 
before 140 to some time after 180. We must now investigate 
their relation to the Fourth Gospel. 

Irenzus is our first witness. He tells us that “those who 
are from Valentinus used most copiously that [Gospel] which 
is according to John.”* It might, with some apparent reason, 
be contended that Valentinus himself is purposely excluded 
from this statement, for just before, Irenzeus has mentioned 
Marcion himself as the mutilator of Luke, and made no 
allusion to his followers. Why has he acted differently in 
the case of Valentinus unless the use of the Gospel was 
confined to his disciples? Three reasons may be alleged. 
First, the mutilating of Luke was a definite act, which was 
completed by Marcion, and only accepted by his adherents, 
whereas the use of the Fourth Gospel was continuous. 
Secondly, Marcion had no successors who stood upon the 
same level with himself, whereas Valentinus, as we have 
seen, was followed by some teachers of high distinction. 
Thirdly, it does not appear that Ireneus was acquainted 
with the writings of Valentinus himself; at least he tells 
us in his Preface> that he has “read the commentaries of 
disciples of Valentinus, and met with some of them,” and 
that it is his intention to describe the opinions of Ptolemzeus 
and his followers®; so that, in the present passage, he natu- 
rally refers to the disciples rather than the master. If Ireneus 


1 Or disciple, γνώριμον. 2 Com. in Joan., ii. 8, beginning. 
° i. iv, 7. ἘΠΕ 
62: 6 Τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον. 


268 THE VALENTINIANS 


had intended to draw the distinction which is suggested, I 
think he would have remarked that, though Valentinus had 
not used the Gospel according to John, yet his followers were 
driven by the force of truth to do so. The phrase, “those who 
are from Valentinus,” therefore, might signify Valentinus and 
his school, and this may be what Irenzus intended; but, 
owing to the limitation of his reading, his personal testimony 
does not extend beyond the school, and, in regard to its 
founder, we must look upon this piece of evidence as 
neutral. 

The evidence of Tertullian is not exposed to the same 
uncertainty as that of Irenzeus; for with Marcion, who 
mutilated the Scriptures, he contrasts, not the Valentinians, 
but Valentinus, who used “the whole instrument.” He says 
that the heretics, in order to corrupt the Christian doctrine, 
were obliged to corrupt its instruments. This they did in two 
ways. “One,” he says, “perverts the Scriptures by his hand, 
another their sense by interpretation. For if Valentinus 
appears to use the entire instrument, he has, with no less 
crafty mind than Marcion, laid hands upon the truth. For 
Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the stylus, 
since he made slaughter of the Scriptures to suit his own 
matter; Valentinus, however, spared them, since he did not 
invent Scriptures for the matter, but matter for the Scriptures ; 
and, nevertheless, he took away more and added more, taking 
away the proper meanings even of single words, and adding 
arrangements of things which have no real existence.”? 1 
have here rendered videtur “appears”; but I believe the 
meaning is, “if it is apparent, clearly seen, that Valentinus 
used the entire instrument,” and that there is no suggestion 
of mere seeming. So in Adversus Marcionem, iv. 2, Tertullian 


1 51 Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur. 
2 De Prescr. Her., 38. 


TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN 269 


says, “Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem cederet.”! If 
the meaning “seems” be insisted upon, however, it will not 
affect our present question; for then the sense can only be 
that Valentinus’ use of the whole body of Scripture was a 
mere seeming, because he thrust into it any interpretation 
that he pleased. Again, the hypothetical form of the state- 
ment, instead of throwing an air of uncertainty around it, 
only gives it greater strength, for it is a reluctant admission 
of an undeniable fact; and if Tertullian had discovered that 
there was one important Christian document which Valen- 
tinus had not used, he would have triumphantly paraded his 
knowledge in order to strengthen his attack. Further, as it 
was to the New Testament that Marcion applied the knife, it 
must be included in “the whole instrument,” even if it be not 
exclusively referred to. If, therefore, Tertullian was correctly 
informed, we must concede that Valentinus made use of the 
Fourth Gospel, and that thus the statement which Irenzus 
guarantees for the school is expressly extended to its founder. 

We must, then, ask whether Tertullian was furnished with 
adequate knowledge. He knew the names of prominent 
leaders of the sect, and he was aware that the school had 
departed, in important points, from the opinion of its founder. 
He declares that in his own time Axionicus of Antioch alone 
maintained the rule of Valentinus inviolate. He was ac- 
quainted with the treatises of men who were not only his 
predecessors, but contemporaries of the heresiarchs themselves, 
and of these he names Justin, Miltiades, Irenzeus, and Proculus 
as the men whom he would like to follow.2 This, it must be 
confessed, gives little evidence of first-hand information, and 
I think it would be rash to assert that Tertullian had ever 
looked at the works of Valentinus. Still he seems to have 


1 See Dr E. Abbot’s Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1880, p. 81, note 1. 
2 Adv. Val., iv. and v. 


270 THE VALENTINIANS 


been acquainted with the course of the controversy on the 
Catholic side from the first; and if this had indicated any 
marked difference between Valentinus and his followers in 
their use of the Scriptures, he would probably have seized 
upon this fact, and turned it to account. We may, therefore, 
fairly say that he states the impression which he had received 
from the Catholic side of the controversy, that the Valentinian 
school, including its founder, had all along made use of the 
whole body of Christian Scriptures. 

It may be said, however, that this impression might be 
perfectly correct, but still, if the Fourth Gospel had not 
appeared or been accepted in the time of Valentinus, he would 
have failed to use it, and this failure could not have been 
made a reproach against him; and hence the fact that he 
did not use the Gospel which became a favourite with his 
followers might have dropped out of sight. Whether this is 
probable must be judged from the view which the Valentinians 


took of the Gospel; and on this point we are happily not 


without important evidence. 

Irenzeus! quotes a long passage, αὐταῖς λέξεσι, from a 
Valentinian writer, the Greek of which has been preserved 
by Epiphanius.? The Latin translation adds, “Et Ptolemzus 
quidem ita”; and though this clause is omitted by Epiphanius, 
there seems to be no reason for doubting its genuineness or 
accuracy. ‘This extract is an attempt to prove that the Proem 
of the Fourth Gospel describes the first Ogdoad, and it begins 
with the words, Ἰωάννης 6 μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου, and John is 
again referred to as the author in the middle of the passage, 
and at the end. Except for the interpretation, Ptolemzeus 
quotes the book precisely as an orthodox teacher would have 
done. There is no sign that he is adapting himself to the 
position of his opponents, but he apparently accepts the 


LL Vil θὲ 2 Her, 25h 27 


TESTIMONY OF PTOLEMAUS 271. 


authorship and the authority of the Gospel without question. 
We have, however, another document from the pen of 
Ptolemeus. This is a letter to a lady, whom he addresses as 
“My fair sister Flora,” so that there can be no suspicion of 
his accommodating himself to the point of view of an ad- 
versary. Itis on the nature and origin of the Mosaic law ; and 
though it is quoted by Epiphanius* to exhibit the blasphemy 
and folly of the author, it contains, along with some question- 
able matter, many sensible remarks. It deserves notice that 
he undertakes to produce his proofs “from the words of our 
Saviour, through which alone it is possible to be guided 
without stumbling to the apprehension of things,’* and that 
the passages which he cites are all contained in our Gospels. 
Not far from the beginning he says, “The Apostle affirms that 
the fabrication of the cosmos was his own |[2.. the Saviour’s], 
saying that all things were made through him, and without 
him was nothing made.”? Thus, in writing to a friend, he 
assumes the apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel, and assumes 
also that it will be so well known to his correspondent that 
it is needless to specify the work, or to say what apostle he 
means. From this passage, too, it is apparent that “John, 
the disciple of the Lord” in the previous extract, is no other 
than the son of Zebedee. In this connection we may notice 
an expression in the letter, “These things both his disciples 
and the Apostle Paul showed,” clearly indicating that 
“disciple” implied a closer personal relation to Christ than 
“apostle.” Ptolemzeus, then, is entirely at one with the 
Catholic tradition so far as it relates vo the origin of the 
Fourth Gospel. 

In the fragments of Heracleon we find no such explicit 


1 Her., xxxiii. 3-7. 2 § 3, end. 
3 Τὴν τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργίαν ἰδίαν λέγει εἶναι (ἅτε πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι, 
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γέγονεν ουδέν) 6 ἀπόστολος, K.T.A. 


4 ἃ 6. 


272 THE VALENTINIANS 


testimony; but Origen happens to have preserved one 
significant line. He says that “Heracleon misapprehends, 
saying that ‘no one has seen God at any time, and the 
following words have been spoken, not by the Baptist, but by 
the disciple.”!_ We cannot doubt that the “disciple” means 
John the Apostle, and that the name was omitted because it 
was common to him and the Baptist. There is an exact 
parallel in Chrysostom, who maintains that the “clause ‘of 
his fulness we all received’ belongs not to the forerunner, 
but to the disciple.”2 I see no reason to doubt that Origen 
has reported the exact words of Heracleon, for he makes a 
copious use of his commentary; and it follows that this 
distinguished Gnostic accepted the current ecclesiastical view 
of the authorship of the Gospel. But this is not all. The 
fact that he wrote an elaborate commentary on the work 
shows that it stood high in his estimation; and the nature i 
of that commentary proves that he regarded it as Holy 
Scripture in the highest sense. He resorts to allegorical 
interpretation, in the manner applied by Philo to the Old 
Testament, and attaches a divine significance to its simplest | 
expressions. , 

There can be no doubt, then, that the western school of 
Valentinians received the Gospel as the Apostle John’s with 
entire conviction. Can the same be said of the eastern 


school ? " 
In order to answer this question we must turn to the 
“Extracts from the writings of Theodotus and the so-called 
eastern school,” a collection of Valentinian material which is 
ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, and printed with his 


1 Εἰρῆσθαι οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ μαθητοῦ. Com. im Joan., 
vi. 2, p. 177 Lom. 
2 Homil. in Joan., Xiv., οὐ τοῦ προδρόμου ἐστὶ ρῆμα, ἀλλὰ τοῦ μαθητοῦ. 
I owe the reference to Grabe, ϑριουϊθηύυνην, ii. p. 236. 


GOSPEL ACCEPTED BY BOTH SCHOOLS = 273 


works. In sections six and seven is contained an interpreta- 
tion given by the followers of Valentinus to portions of the 
Proem of the Fourth Gospel, and in the course of this it is 
stated that the μονογενής is such only within the pleroma, but 
when he has been seen here “he is no longer called by the 
Apostle μονογενής, but ὡς μονογενής, δόξαν ws μονογενοῦς, 
because Jesus, being one and the same, is in the creation 
indeed first-born, but in the pleroma only-begotten.” Again, 
in section forty-one we read, “The Saviour says ‘let your , 
light shine, . . . concerning which an Apostle says, ‘ which 
lightens every man coming into the world.’”* There are also 
several other citations from the Gospel.2 Hence we learn that 
an apostolic authorship was ascribed to the book, and that its 
words were scanned with the most minute attention as sure 
indications of divine truth. There is no reason for doubting 
that the Apostle means John, as no other apostle is ever 
mentioned as the author ; still we ought to observe that Luke's 
Gospel also is ascribed to an apostle, showing that the word 
was still used with something of its ancient latitude.’ 

Now the unhesitating acceptance and reverential use of the 


_ Fourth Gospel as Johannine, or at least as apostolic, by two 


—— 


widely separated schools among the successors of Valentinus, 
afford a strong presumption that Tertullian was right in 
saying that the master himself used “the whole instrument.” 
If he was acquainted with the Gospel, and deliberately rejected 
it, the unanimity of his followers in embracing the Catholic 
view is inexplicable, except, indeed, on the supposition that 

1 The Greek in Migne has ᾿Απόστολος without an article, but this may 
be a mere error. 

ἢ See §§ 3, 9, 13, 18-19, 26, 45, 61, 65, 73. 

8. § 73, “Therefore the Lord came down to give peace to those from 
heaven, not to those from earth, as the Apostle says, ‘Peace on the earth, 
and glory in the highest.’” I think the reference is not to Luke ii. 14, 
but to xix. 38, and that ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ought to be ἐν οὐρανῷ, as it is in the 


second passage in Luke, for this suits the context far better. 
18 


274 THE VALENTINIANS 


ἱ 
the evidence of its authorship was so strong that they, as 
honest men, could not deny its claims. But if the book was 
not published till after the time of Valentinus, his disciples 
must have known this, and surely, either in the east or in the 
west, must have looked suspiciously on a work which was 
unexpectedly sprung upon the world fifty or sixty years after 
the alleged date of its composition. It is true that the same 
difficulty arises in connection with the Catholic writers, and 
they too must have accepted as one of the early documents 
of their religion a book which they knew was first published 
in their own lifetime. But this difficulty, to me already 
insuperable, becomes much more formidable when we find — 
two conflicting parties charged with the same error. By this 
time the Catholics and the Gnostics were at daggers drawn. 
If the Catholics were credulous, the Gnosties would be 
suspicious; if the Gnostics boasted that they had found an 
apostolic authority for their dogmas, the Catholics would have 
been keen in following the traces of forgery. I think the 
only probable explanation of the facts is that for which alone 
we have any testimony, namely, that the Gospel was published 
and accepted as John’s long before the rise of the Valentinian 
schools, and that it was known and received by Valentinus 
himself. 

We have, however, one other witness whom we must 
carefully interrogate. Hippolytus, in giving an account of the 
doctrines of Valentinus, has the following passage :—“ All the 
prophets, then, and the law spoke from the demiurge, a foolish 
god, he says,! foolish men, knowing nothing. Therefore, says 
he, the Saviour says, ‘all that have come before me are 
thieves and robbers.”? Notwithstanding the slight verbal 


1 Λέγει. 2 Φησί. 
3 Ref., vi. 35, beginning. Πάντες of πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἐληλυθότες κλέπται καὶ λῃσταὶ 
εἰσί, John x. 8 has πάντες ὅσοι ἦλθον πρὸ ἐμοῦ κλέπται εἰσὶν καὶ λῃσταί. 


TESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS 275 


alteration, there can be no reasonable doubt that we have here 
a quotation from the Fourth Gospel, especially when we take 
the preceding evidence into account. This, so far as I know, 
is not disputed; and the only question is whether the 
quotation occurred in the writings of Valentinus himself or in 
those of one of his followers. As Hippolytus does not specify 
the book which he had before him, it is unwise to answer this 
question with excessive confidence. Lipsius, a high authority, 
however, has no hesitation. He says, “Numerous literal 
citations are inserted from the original authority made use of 
—each of these being introduced with a φησί. Some have 
thought that this φησί points to Valentinus himself as the 
actual speaker from whose words the citation is made. But 
it is evident from the form of doctrine propounded in the 
Philosophumena that this is impossible, for that is demon- 
strably a younger development of the Italian School.”! If 
this statement were accompanied by the evidence on which it 
is supposed to rest, it would be easier to form a judgment of 
its validity; but as it is, it only expresses the opinion of a 
careful and learned inquirer. It would be a difficult and 
tedious piece of work to draw out, in the order of historical 
dependence, a sketch of the various phases of Valentinian 
speculation ; but without entering on so large a task we may 
make one or two observations which may help to guide us in 
our present inquiry. First, we have only a very few frag- 
ments from the pen of Valentinus himself, consisting of 
extracts from letters and homilies,’ so that these are precluded 
both by their scantiness and by their character from giving 
us any considerable knowledge of his system. We are 
therefore without any first-hand information to serve as a 
standard of judgment. Secondly, Irenzeus, in a very short 


1 Dictionary of Christiam Biography, iv. Ὁ. 1085 ὃ. 
2 These may be seen in Stieren’s Ireneus, i. p. 909 sqq. 


276 THE VALENTINIANS 


section,) presents what he evidently regards as a summary of 


Valentinus’ own doctrine, as distinguished from the varying — 


opinions of his followers, and this differs in important respects 
from the account of Hippolytus. But we have seen reason to 
believe that Irenzeus was not acquainted with the works of 
Valentinus; and, therefore, if Hippolytus, in describing the 
theory of the heresiarch, contradicts Irenzeus, whose writings 
he knew and freely appropriated, it is reasonable to suppose 
that he does so because he possessed more authentic informa- 
tion. Lipsius himself treats this account as “ uncertain,” and 
says that “if in these short and meagre notices Irenzeus has 
made use of some older authority (possibly that of Justin’s 
Syntagma), the authority itself must probably have con- 
founded the doctrines of Valentinus himself with the later 
opinions of his school.”* Thus vanishes every appearance of 
external authority whereby to check the statements of 
Hippolytus. Thirdly, the fact that this or that doctrine 


belonged to the Italian school does not prove that it cannot — 


have emanated from the founder; for it was in Rome that he 
principally taught, and some of his views must have been 
retained by his western successors. And lastly, I may venture 
to observe that, in the course of so many years over which 
his activity extended, Valentinus himself may have developed 
and modified his teaching, so that even correct descriptions of 
his doctrine, drawn from different periods of his life, would 
not be in all respects identical or consistent. That this was 
really so there is some indication in the statement of Irenzeus, 
that he gave sometimes one, sometimes another, and sometimes 
a third account of the origin of Jesus*; for though we cannot 


rely upon the details in this section, we may have here ἃ 


genuine reminiscence of the uncertainty and variety of repre- 
sentation attending some features of the original scheme. 


tl ἀν} 2 L.¢., p. 1090. pale mee he 


TESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS 277 


It is possible, therefore, after all, that Hippolytus may have 
derived his exposition from Valentinus, and it is necessary to 
turn to his pages to see what it is that he professes to do. 

It is his avowed intention, as stated in his preface, to expose 
the opinions of the founders of the heresies. His words to 
this effect will be fully quoted when we treat of Basilides. 
In introducing the section on Valentinus, after finishing that 
on Simon Magus, he says, “This, then, is the fable according 
to Simon, from which Valentinus, having started, calls it by 
other names. For .... the Aons of Valentinus are con- 
fessedly the six roots of Simon. But since we think we have 
sufficiently expounded the mythology of Simon, let us see 
what Valentinus also says. The heresy of Valentinus, then, is 
in possession of a Pythagorean and Platonic basis.” There- 
fore, having given a short account of these schools, he will 
“speak also of the doctrines of Valentinus,’’ so that “the 
opinions of Valentinus”? may be easily recognized by juxta- 
position.? Valentinus is again named twice in the next 
chapter as the man whose opinions are to be exposed. 
Having devoted several sections to the Greek philosophers, 
he resumes his treatment of the heresy thus:—Such is “the 
opinion of Pythagoras and Plato, from which Valentinus, 
having collected his heresy, and not from the Gospels, as we 
shall show, would justly be reckoned a Pythagorean and 
Platonist, not a Christian.”* The evident meaning of these 
words cannot be explained away by saying that Hippolytus, 
when he speaks of the founder, means the Valentinians; for 
not only does he refer more than once to differences of opinion 
within the sect, but he divides his treatise into two parts, and 
_ expressly separates the master from the school. The first part 
closes by saying that “the opinions of Valentinus have been 


1 Ta Οὐαλεντίνου λέγειν. 2 Ta Οὐαλεντίνῳ δόξαντα. 
5 ὅδ. ΟἽ; 4 § 29, beginning. 


278 THE VALENTINIANS 


sufficiently stated,” and proposing to pass on to the varying 
dogmas of the “school,’! At the conclusion of the second 
part, Hippolytus has not forgotten this division of the subject. 
These, he says, are the things alleged by “those from the 
school of Valentinus.” He adds a very important statement. 
He has not gone into their scriptural arguments, because their 
dogmas have been already laboriously confuted by the blessed 
elder Irenzeus, from whom he has taken his account of their 
inventions, showing that they are Pythagorean.” This proves 
that Hippolytus was aware that his master Irenzus reported 
the opinions of the school, and not of the founder, and that he 


knew what he was about when he followed him so copiously ἡ 


in the second part, and adopted an entirely independent 
exposition in the first. It seems clear, then, that in this first 
part he believed that he was reporting the opinions of 
Valentinus himself, and from time to time quoting his very 
words. To this part, accordingly, we must turn, and examine 
some of its features a little more closely. 

The first thing that strikes us is that, although Valentinus 
is expressly referred to a few times in the course of the ex- 
position,®? and a Psalm of his is referred to and quoted,* 
still the doctrines are very largely presented in the form 
of an abridged statement by Hippolytus himself, and are 
ascribed to the school, as is shown by the frequent use of the 
plural.’ Moreover, the whole account begins with the words, 
“Valentinus, then, and Heracleon and Ptolemezeus and all the 

1 § 37,end, There is a lacuna in the text ; but the sense is sufficiently 
clear. ὁ 8 55. 


3 P. 272, line 82; 282, 28; 288, 45 ; 290, 72-3, 76, 79. Duncker and 
Schneidewin’s edition. 


* P. 290, 79-85. 


® P. 270, 29-47, 50; 272, 58, 85-6; 274, 89-92; 276, 26, 32-35, 52; 


278, 69 ; 280, 2, 3, 4; 282, 22, 23, 33, 39, 41, 47, 53; 286, 2-18 ; 288, 30, 
47; 290, 86. That is twenty-three times, in two instances extending over 
considerable passages. 


ee eS Se. ee ee σκλ υλο ee 


CO »»:....;:-.  . 


TESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS 279 


school of these men,” and the plural is used for about half a 
page. But inwoven with the description are a number of 
quotations, marked by the usual φησί. We also meet with 
θέλει,3 λέγει, and ἐπιλέγει From these phenomena it has been 
inferred that Hippolytus quotes indiscriminately any member 
of the Valentinian school, and that there is no ground for 
attributing the citations to Valentinus himself. But this can 
hardly be accepted as a reasonable conclusion, As Hippolytus 
makes a clear distinction between Valentinus and his school, 
he would not impute to the founder what might be only a 
later development of his doctrine; but on the other hand he 
might reasonably extend to the sect the great leading features 
of the founder’s theory. A large body of the master’s teach- 
ing must have remained with the disciples; else they could 
hardly have been called after his name; and in presenting 
this, Hippolytus pauses four times to point out where differ- 
ences of opinion arose. He starts by saying that the whole 
school agreed in thinking that the ἀρχή of all things was a 
μονάς, and called πατήρ; but they were divided in opinion 
as to whether he could be a Father without having σιγή as 
a σύζυγος. Hippolytus leaves them to fight out this point 
among themselves, and, expressing his own preference for the 
Pythagorean ἀρχή, which was one and ἄζυγος, introduces his 
first quotation, which represents the Father as existing alone, 
and contains nothing about the question on which the school 
was divided. It uses, however, the epithet γόνιμος, which 
might serve very well as a starting-point for the dispute. 
Here, therefore, we seem to have the doctrine in its primitive 
form, which lay open to different interpretations. The next 
two points of difference, relating to the origin of the eons,’ 


1 P. 270, 47 3 272, 53, 65; 274, 8, 13, 14; 276, 28; 280, 97, 1, 5, 8, 15 ; 
284, 62, 70, 72, 78, 81, ὃς ; 286, 9; 288, 27. In all, twenty times. 
P.. 280; 7: PS 264,77. 4 P. 286, I9. 5 P. 274, 89-91. 


280 THE VALENTINIANS 


and to the question whether the Father and Silence were 
included in the thirty zons,! do not throw any light upon 
the subject. The fourth, however, is of great importance, for 
it occurs in connection with the quotation which contains the 
passage from John. The quotation is one of the longest in 
the whole account, and goes on to speak of the birth of Jesus 
through Mary, and to give a Gnostic interpretation of the 
passage, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,” ete. It 
concludes by saying that Jesus, unlike other men, was born 
not only from the Demiurge, but from Wisdom and the 
Demiurge, “in order that the Demiurge may effect the mould- 


ing and preparation of his body, but the Holy Spirit may. 


furnish his essence,2 and he may become a heavenly Logos, 
born from the Ogdoad through Mary.’ Hence arose the 
division between the Italian and the Eastern school, the 
former saying that the body of Jesus was psychical, the 
latter that it was spiritual. The westerns appealed to the 


descent of the Spirit at the baptism; those in the east said — 


that the demiurgic art only moulded what was given by the 
Spirit to Mary. It will be observed that the latter argument 
looks like an attempt to interpret the closing and rather 
ambiguous words of the quotation. The quotation itself 
gives no decision on the point in dispute; and therefore we 
may fairly conclude that it is taken from a work which was 
composed before the disruption into eastern and western. 

Two or three minor points call for a moment’s attention. 
One of the instances of the use of φησί occurs in the state- 
ment about the Italian school to which we have just referred. 
The quotation here cannot be from Valentinus, but may be 
taken from Heracleon or Ptolemzus, who have just been 
mentioned. In the beginning of § 37, “the heresy of 
Valentinus,” and “the opinions held by them,” are placed 


1 P. 276, 32-35. 2 Τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ. 


᾿ 
4 
, 
; 


TESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS 281 


within two lines of one another, as though the former phrase 
included the latter. The quotation from the Psalm of 
Valentinus is followed by an exposition “according to them,” 
showing that the disciples respected and commented on the 
words of the master! I have noticed, lastly, one interesting 
little indication that words attributed to the school by 
Hippolytus were really used by Valentinus. Hippolytus says, 
“This material man is, as it were, according to them, an inn 
or dwelling-place? sometimes of soul alone, sometimes of 
soul and demons,” οὐς 8 Clement of Alexandria* quotes from 
a letter of Valentinus, in which he says, “The heart appears 
to me to be affected somewhat like an inn (zavdoxelw),” which 
often has careless and dirty men in it; “so also is the 
heart, ... being impure, being a dwelling (οἰκητήριον) of 
many demons.” Naturally the connection is quite different ; 
but the resemblance of the figure and the identity of the 
words are striking. 

I am therefore unable to assent to the dictum that “it is 
quite arbitrary to fasten this quotation from the Fourth 
Gospel upon Valentinus in particular, as distinguished from 
Heracleon and Ptolemeus.”® As Dr Martineau does not 
state or discuss the evidence for this statement, we cannot 
tell whether his judgment was founded on a consideration of 
the whole of the evidence or not. For my part, I think that, 
while there is always a possibility of error in such cases, the 
evidence, when fairly weighed, indicates that the quotation is 
from Valentinus. This result is only contirmatory of previous 
probabilities, so that on a survey of the whole investigation I 
think we must conclude that it is decidedly more likely than 
not that the founder of the Valentinian school made use of 
our Gospel. 


1 § 37, near end, 2 Πανδοχεῖον ἢ κατοικητήριον. 
3 Ῥ᾿ 284, 55.sqq ὁ Strom., ii, p. 488 sg. ὅ Seat of Authority, p. 197. 


282 THE VALENTINIANS 


Dr Martineau,! however, produces what he evidently regards © | 
as a pretty conclusive proof that Valentinus was unacquainted q 
with the Gospel. That I may not do any injustice to it, I ; | 
must quote it in full, “In the account of his system by — 
Irenzus,? and of the passages of scripture adduced in its © 
support, we find only texts from the Old Testament, from the — 
synoptics, from Paul, tortured into applications which they ~ 


will not bear; while not a single Johannine text presents — 
itself, though to every reader the most apposite quotations ; 
must occur, as lying right in the way, as at once supplying ᾿ 
a good argument and sparing a bad one. Thus, in support of ἢ 
the position that before Christ no man had known the — 
supreme God, the irresistible appeal is not made to John 1. 18, 
‘No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, j 
who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.’ 
This silence becomes the more striking when we turn to an ~ 
appendix in which Irenzus reports the later Valentinian — 
exposition given by Ptolemeus; for here, at last, we meet — 
with the Johannine texts which we so strangely miss in a 
system which moves among xons named ‘Logos,’ ‘Only- | 
begotten,’ ‘ Life, ‘Grace,’ and ‘Truth. The natural inference. 
would be that the master had not yet seen the book in which ~ 
the disciple found a welcome ally.” 
Dr Martineau seems here to have fallen inadvertently into — 
some inaccuracies, probably from want of sufficient attention — 
to the general scope and context of the passage. In the first — 
place, Irenzeus, as we have seen, professes to deal with the 
school of Ptolemzus, and makes no pretence of being | 
acquainted with the writings of Valentinus himself; and 
therefore, in all probability, the Scripture quotations in the — 
passage referred to are all taken from members of the school 
who confessedly acknowledged the Fourth Gospel. There is ; 
1 Seat of Authority, p. 196 sq. 2 Adv. Her., i. 8, 1-14. 


ἊΨ π δι. eet 


PASSAGE ΙΝ IRENZUS ᾿ 283 


not a shadow of reason for ascribing them to Valentinus, 
except so far as he may be represented by his disciples. 
Secondly, the sections referred to are not even occupied 
with an account of the general system, for that has been 
| just completed, but are devoted to an exposure of the false 
and arbitrary interpretations of Scripture to which the sect 
had recourse; and Ireneus throws together a number of 
miscellaneous examples, no doubt selecting those that appeared 
to him peculiarly absurd. To have inserted among these any 
texts that would have supplied a good argument and spared a 
bad one would only have proved that Irenzeus did know what 
he was about, for his avowed object is to produce bad ones. 
Thirdly, it is by no means certain that a Johannine text does 
not present itself. It is said that the passions of Achamoth 
are indicated by sayings of the Lord: grief, by “my soul is 
exceeding sorrowful”; fear, by “Father, if it be possible, let 
the cup pass from me”; perplexity, by “xai τί εἴπω, οὐκ οἶδα. 
The last words may be a reminiscence of Jn. xil. 27, where 
the former clause occurs, the οὐκ οἶδα being added either from 
mistaken recollection or from a deliberate intention of making 
the sense clear when the words were detached from their 
context. It would hardly be safe to adduce this tiny 
quotation as proving that the Gospel was used; but it at 
least might give pause to an unqualified assertion in the 
negative. Fourthly, the quotation from Ptolemzus is not in 
an appendix at all, but is part and parcel of the same passage. 
There is no sort of indication that Irenzus is passing on to 
later writers. All the previous exposition has been accom- 
panied by plurals, λέγουσι, φάσκουσι, etc.; and precisely the 
same construction is kept up, although he is introducing 
a long quotation from a particular author,—déidacKovor . . . 
λέγοντες οὕτως. It is not till the end of the quotation that 
Ptolemzus is mentioned, and then only in the Latin, so that 


284 THE VALENTINIANS 


possibly the reference to him may be a note by the 
translator. This interpretation of the Proem of the Fourth § 
Gospel comes indeed at the end of the list of illustrations, and 
this, I suppose, must be the reason why Dr Martineau calls it 
an appendix. But there is ample reason for this arrangement. — 
The other expositions, occupying in all rather more than two 
pages, are very brief, and are not given as formal quotations. ' 
But the interpretation of the Proem is of quite a different 
kind. It is long, covering about a page and a half, and it is ; 
regularly quoted ; and therefore it was naturally kept separate 
from the rest. There was yet another reason for keeping it 
in reserve. Ireneus thought it was worth refuting, and 
immediately proceeds with his refutation in the following 
chapter. Dr Martineau’s argument, therefore, seems to have 
no basis whatever in the real facts of the case. Accordingly, 
all our evidence is on one side, and is entitled to control our 
judgment until fresh evidence is produced. 

Before we leave the Valentinians one other observation 
deserves notice. Dr Martineau, who of course fully admits 
that the Gospel was used by the school, says,’ “Yet, while 
they used the book, it is surprising how little its historical 
authority seems to have weighed with them; for in the face of 
its obvious chronology and plainest narrative, they attributed 
to the ministry of Jesus a duration of only a year, and 
taught that he lived on earth eighteen months after his 


79 


resurrection.” * We have seen that the belief in the one year’s 
ministry was not confined to Gnostics, and the fancy that 
Christ lived with his disciples for eighteen months after his 
resurrection is as much opposed to the Synoptics as to John. 
The system of allegorical interpretation disposed of all diffi- 
culties; and if even in the Catholic Church the Gospel was 


1 Seat of Authority, p. 196. 
* These beliefs are attested by Irenzus, 1, iii. 2, 3. 


THOUGHT THE GOSPEL ALLEGORICAL δὃς 


looked upon as spiritual rather than corporeal, we may well 
‘suppose that among the Valentinians it was regarded rather 
as a philosophical allegory than as literal history. But this 
would be far from implying that they thought less of it, or 


failed to ascribe to it an apostolic authority. 


CHAPTER IX 
MARCION 


From Valentinus we turn to his contemporary Marcion. It 
is said that Marcion was born at Sinope, in Pontus, where his 
father was bishop!; and if this be true, he must have been 
acquainted with Christianity from his earliest years. The 
dates of the several incidents in his life cannot be determined 
with certainty ; but the most important fact for us at present 
is that he had become widely known as a teacher of heresy 
before Justin Martyr wrote his greater Apology.” This 
Apology, as we have seen, was most probably written soon 
after 150 A.D.,3 and we must place the beginning of Marcion’s 


᾿ 
Ὄπ ee 


a 


activity at least a few years earlier. We cannot expect to — 


find any evidence that Marcion made use of our Fourth 
Gospel, for the complaint against him is that he acknow- 
ledged only the Gospel according to Luke, which he mutilated 
in order to bring it into agreement with his own doctrines. 
Irenzus intimates that this procedure was defended on the 
plea that the apostles had preached the Gospel while they 


1 Epiphanius, Her., xlii. 1. 

2 See § 26, where it is said that he has influenced many “in every race 
of men” ; and § 58, where he is described as “ even now teaching.” 

5 For the question of the dates of Justin’s works, see, besides Semisch, 
Justin Martyr, and Otto, De Justint Martyris Scriptis et Doctrina, the 
elaborate articles by Volkmar and Hort, and other evidence, referred to in 


the chapter on Justin Martyr, p. 85 sq. 
286 


é 


REJECTION OF APOSTOLIC GOSPELS 287 


still entertained Jewish sentiments ;! and Tertullian tells us 
that Marcion made use of the passage in Galatians in which 
Paul rebukes “apostles themselves” as not walking uprightly 
according to the truth of the Gospel, to destroy the authority 
of the “Gospels which are published as genuine and under the 
name of apostles, or even of apostolic men, in order to confer 
upon his own the credit which he takes away from them,” ? 
and his followers argued on the same ground that their 
master had not so much introduced a new rule by the separa- 
tion of law and Gospel as reformed one that had been 
adulterated. From these statements it may be plausibly 
argued that Marcion must have known certain Gospels which 
he believed to be of apostolical origin, and that John is the 
only one of our four to which the argument is immediately 
applicable, Peter, James, and John being the only apostles 
mentioned in Galatians, though probably Mark, which was 
looked upon as virtually Peter’s, might also be aimed at. I 
think, however, that this argument cannot be pressed. I 
cannot, indeed, suppose that Tertullian “knew nothing about 
it,’* for his whole treatise against Marcion seems to indicate 
familiarity with the heretic’s works; but he is not sufficiently 
explicit for our purpose. We cannot doubt that he is correct 
in saying that Marcion “selected Luke,’® and rejected some 
other Gospels, and, in justification of his conduct, appealed to 
the passage in Galatians; but then the argument from this 
passage would be satisfied if only Matthew and Mark were 
in question, for the point is that Paul rebuked, not three 
specified men, but apostles. This would afford a plea for 
setting aside whatever proceeded directly or indirectly from 
the Twelve. And here we have the ground for the selection 


1 TTI, xii. 12. 2 Adv. Mare., iv. 3. 
3 Ib.,i. 20. See also v. 3, and De Prescr., 23. 
4 Dr Martineau, Seat of Authority, p. 198. 5 Adv. Marc., iv. 2. 


288 MARCION 


of Luke; not merely that its contents were more suitable, for 
these had to be purged of their Judaic elements, but that it 
was written under the authority of Paul, and not of the 
primitive apostles. 

Another passage is also appealed to, in which Tertullian | 
says, “If you had not purposely rejected some, and corrupted 
others of the Scriptures which contradict your opinion, the 
gospel of John would have refuted you in this case, preaching: 
that the Spirit in the body of a dove came down and settleci 
on the Lord.”! Dr Abbot and Dr Martineau, while taking! 
opposite views of the value of this testimony, both assume 
without hesitation that “evangelium Johannis” denotes our 
Fourth Gospel.? I cannot help thinking that this is an error, 
and that what is really meant is the passage in Luke about 
the preaching of the Baptist. It is Luke alone that speaks 
of the “bodily shape” of the Spirit. Marcion altogether 
‘rejected’ some Gospels which related the preaching of John, 
and ‘corrupted’ Luke by omitting this portion of the 
narrative. The practice of breaking off the quotation in 
the middle, at the words “would have refuted you,” has 
concealed what I believe to be the true interpretation. 

These remarks prepare us to estimate the force of an 
argument that Marcion was unacquainted with the Fourth 
Gospel. Dr Martineau asks: “Who can believe that, with 
his anti-Judaic design to construe Christianity into a 
universal religion, Marcion would have taken Luke as his 
text-book, if the next Gospel had been ready to his hand ? 
It would have saved him a large proportion of the trouble 
and odium he incurred in making a synoptic speak sufficiently, 
like Paul, and supplied him with many a formula weightier 


1 De Carne Christ, 3. 


* The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 81; The Seat of Authority, 
p. 198. : 


REJECTION OF FOURTH GOSPEL 289 


than his own for the expression of some favourite ideas.” ἢ 
This criticism is surely made from the point of view of the 
Tiibingen school, and not of the ancient Church. It was the 
traditional belief that Luke’s was the Pauline Gospel. This 
alone would be a sufficient reason for its adoption by Marcion ; 
and his acceptance of the current opinion would explain his 
conviction that the Gospel had not come down in its original 
‘form, but had been “interpolated by the defenders of 
Judaism.” 2 Again, if the Fourth Gospel was in existence, 
‘and ascribed to the apostle John, its reputed authorship alone 
supplied an adequate ground for its rejection, for was not 
John a pillar among the Judaic twelve? But in addition to 
this, the contents would appear to a Marcionite to correspond 
with the authorship. The most obvious and characteristic 
doctrine of the Gospel is that “the Word was made flesh”; 
and this is in fundamental opposition to Marcion, who denied 
the reality of Christ’s body. The Gospel taught that the 
Word came to “its own,” evidently meaning the Jewish 
race*; that Jesus was the Christ, of whom Moses wrote, 
and whom the Prophets foretold; that salvation was from 
the Jews; that Jesus called the Temple “my Father's house” ; 
that it was necessary to eat the flesh of Jesus, and drink his 
blood; and that blood and water flowed from his wounded 
side—and all these were quite inconsistent with the heresy of 
Marcion. It would have been necessary, then, to cut away 
from this Gospel several of its most marked features. But 
there was no ground, as in the case of Luke, for doing so; 
for as John was a Judaic apostle, the Judaic parts of the 


1 Seat of Authority, pp. 198 sq. This argument is also relied upon by 
- Réville, Le quat. Evang., p. 71, note. 
. # Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iv. 4. 
_ 3 Schiirer, however, thinks it clearly refers to the cosmos (Theol. Literaturz., 
‘an. 9, 1886). I cannot accept this view ; and at all events Marcion may 
᾿ lave understood it as referring to the Jews. 


19 


290 MARCION 


Gospel must have been genuine, and were sufficient to condemn 
the whole work. This argument, then, appears to me to be 
destitute of force. 

Dr Martineau, however, has a further argument. He says, 
“Tt is the less likely that Marcion’s disregard of the Fourth 
Gospel was intentional, because from Hippolytus we learn 
that his follower Apelles already used it, and from Origen 
that passages of it were cited by later Marcionites.” Farther 
on, Dr Martineau seems to place the Valentinians and the — 
Marcionites on precisely the same level in this respect, in each 
case the disciples using a book which was not in the hands οὗ 
the master. I think this hardly gives a correct impression 
of the facts. Irenaeus expressly says that the disciples as — 
well as Marcion himself rejected all the Gospels but that 
according to Luke*; so that it cannot be pretended that the — 
school gladly adopted a Gospel which was unknown to the ~ 
founder. For the latter supposition I do not know that there 
exists a particle of direct evidence. But then, what of Apelles 
and of the statements of Origen? Apelles, according to 
Tertullian, was “a disciple and afterwards a deserter” of 
Marcion, and in this respect occupies the same position 
as Valentinus, “his fellow-disciple and fellow-deserter.” ὃ 
According to Origen, he was a disciple* of Marcion, who 
“became the father of a certain heresy,”® or, as the same 
writer says elsewhere, “a disciple indeed of Marcion, but 
rather the inventor of another heresy than the one which he 
received from his master.”® Epiphanius gives a similar 
account, saying that he armed himself against his own 
teacher as well as against truth.” He is therefore not a 


1B. 208, ? III. xii. 12, “ Marcion et qui ab eo sunt.” 
3 De Carne Christi, 1. * Or, acquaintance, γνώριμος. 


5 Cont. Cels., v. 54, p. 269 Lom. 6 Hom. in Gen., ii. 2, Latin. 
7 Her., xliv. τ. . . 


APELLES 201 


proper representative of the Marcionite school. One im- 
portant characteristic of his system is his rejection of 
-Marcion’s docetism, and his doctrine that Christ had real 
flesh, which, however, was not derived from the Virgin or 
human descent, but gathered together for himself from the four 
elements. This doctrine would remove one cause of offence 
from the Fourth Gospel; and if Apelles really admitted its 
authority, he may have deliberately departed in this as in 
other respects from the opinion of his former teacher. But 
in fact there is no evidence that he did acknowledge its 
authority. The only proof that he used it, so far as I know, 
is the statement of Hippolytus? that he admitted that Christ 
rose and appeared to his disciples, and showed them the marks 
of the nails and of his side. Though this statement is not 
established by a quotation, we may accept it as correct; but 
it proves no more than that Apelles borrowed from the Fourth 
Gospel a fact which fell in with his system, and does not 
warrant us in supposing that he accepted the Gospel as a 
whole. The truth is, instead of having a canon of his own, 
like Marcion, he gave the advice to make use of every 
Scripture, and select what was useful, saying that the Saviour 
had shown what things in Scripture had been spoken from 
himself, and what from the demiurge,? and Hippolytus assures 
us that “of the Gospels or the Apostle he chooses what pleases 
him.”* Such use, then, as he made of the Fourth Gospel was 
part of a general plan, in which he differed from Marcion, and 
consequently the argument founded on the single reference 
to it which we are told that he made falls to the ground. 

This account of Apelles will enable us to form a just 
estimate of the passages in Origen which are regarded by 
Dr Martineau as referring to Marcionites. Dr Martineau has 


1 Epiph., 2b., ὃ 2; Hippol., Ref., vii. 38 and x. 20. 2 vii. 38. 
3 Epiphanius, 2b., §§ 2 and 5. 4 vii. 38. 


292 MARCION 


not given the references to these passages in his work, but 
kindly communicated them to me by letter. He appeals 
first to De Principiis, τι. iv. 1, where Origen gives “a definite 
statement of the class of heretics whom he is about to face, 
evidently Marcionites.” The men whom Origen proposes to 
confute are described as “those who think that the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ is another God, beside him who 
gave the answers of the law to Moses, or sent the prophets, 
who is the God of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” 
Now, this doctrine was a common feature of Gnosticism, and 
therefore affords no reason for supposing that Origen had 
Marcionites alone in view. Accordingly he quotes indiscrimi- 
nately from the Scriptures, including Acts and 2 Timothy, 
which, like the Fourth Gospel, did not belong to the Mar- 
cionite canon. When, therefore, in § 3 he says that the 
“maintainers of this heresy” rely upon the verse, “No one 


has seen God at any time,”* whereas the God of Moses was | 


seen by him, and before him by the fathers, we cannot justly 
infer that this text was accepted as authoritative by the 
disciples of Marcion. The following section, in which the 
“good God” of the New Testament is distinguished from the 
“just God” of the Old, is more to the point; for though the 
Gnostics generally believed that the God of the Old Testament 
was inferior to the God of the New, this was a peculiarly 


a μέν. ἢ 4 ᾿ω.. 


Marcionite way of expressing the difference. As it happens, — 


however, the men who upheld this opinion are not said to 
have quoted the Fourth Gospel, their favourite text being 
that no one is good but one, God the Father.? Origen neverthe- 
less quotes the Gospel against them, without any intimation 
that they did not accept it: “Just Father, the world did 
not know thee.”* But he also quotes 1 Peter,tand throughout 


1 John i. 18. 4 v. 1, p. 176; § 4, p. 183. 
3 John xvii. 25 ; § 4, p. 184. 4 § 3, p. 180. 


LATER MARCIONITES 293 


the discussion there is no allusion to the Marcionite treatment 
of the canon. At the beginning he refers, not to the princeps, 
but to the principes istius heresis, showing that he intends 
to refute a particular heretical doctrine, which appeared in 
different forms in several sects, and not to confine his remarks 
to a single sect. This view is confirmed by his statement in 
Book IV.! that of τε ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων supposed that the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament belonged to the “demiurge, 
whom Jews worship, as the demiurge was imperfect and not 
good.”? We must add that Apelles and his followers were 
likely to retain the distinction between the just and the good 
God, and may have helped to spread Marcionite phraseology 
beyond the limits of a single school. I think, therefore, that 
Origen is purposely vague, and that if he had intended to 
confine his attack to the followers of Marcion, he would have 
said so expressly, instead of speaking in such general terms. 
' Dr Martineau also refers to the Commentarw in Hvan- 
gelium Joannis, ΧΙΧ. ὃ 1, where the words are under con- 
sideration, “Jesus answered, Ye know neither me nor my 
Father; if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also.” 
Origen tells us that the érepddofo: are of opinion that this 
clearly proves that the God whom the Jews worshipped was 
not the Father of Christ. But, as we have seen, this view 
was not distinctive of the Marcionites. There is nothing in 
the passage to prove that Origen had them in mind; and the 
loose term, “the heterodox,” which is repeated more than 
once,° suggests a wider reference. 

Finally, Dr Martineau appeals to a curious passage in the 
- Homilies on Luke In commenting on the popular thought 
_ that perhaps John the Baptist himself was Christ, the writer 
points out the danger of an excessive love, and says: “Certain 


1 § 8, p. 497. 2 οὐκ ἂγαθοῦ. 3 John viii. 19. 
pak. E30. 5 Pp. 140, 145. 6 xxv., pp. 181 sq. 


294 ΜΑΒΟΙΟΝ 


persons have broken out into such audacity of affection as to 
invent new and unheard-of monstrosities about Paul. For 
some say that what has been written, ‘to sit on the right 
hand and the left hand of the Saviour, was spoken of Paul 
and of Marcion: that Paul should sit on the right hand, 
Marcion should sit on the left. Moreover others, reading, ‘I 
will send you an Advocate, the Spirit of truth, do not wish 
to understand a third person from the Father and the Son, 
and a divine and exalted nature, but the apostle Paul.” We 
cannot doubt that the supporters of the former opinion were — 
Marcionites; but the text to which they refer is not in the } 


— ee ee ee 


Fourth Gospel. I see no reason for believing that the 
“others,” who do appeal to the Gospel, belonged to the same 
sect. 

The evidence from Origen, therefore, is, to say the least, 
very precarious, and is widely different from an express 
statement on his part that the later Marcionites had received 


the Fourth Gospel into their canon. It does not appear to 
me in the least to bear out the contention that the Marcionites 
gladly adopted a Gospel which was unknown, but would have 
been welcome, to their master. On the other hand, there is : 
distinct testimony that they did not do so in the Dialogus de 
recta in Dewm Fide, which is printed among the works of : 
Origen, but belongs to a later time! Adamantius quotes the — 
words relating to Lazarus, ποῦ τεθείκατε αὐτόν ; the Marcionite 
immediately replies, Οὐ γέγραπται ἐν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ εὐαγγελίῳ, 
thus clearly showing that the sect did not acknowledge ἢ 
authority of the Fourth Gospel?; and indeed he has already — 
insisted that there is only one Gospel, and not four, as the | 


1 About 300 A.D., though it seems to have undergone some revision 
afterwards. See the edition by Van de Sande Bakhuysen, 1901, Hinleitung, 
pp. xvi and xix. 

2 Sect. 1., p. 279 Lom. ; p. 36 in Van de S. Bak. 


CONCLUSION: EVIDENCE NEUTRAL 295 


Catholics alleged. It is true that in a later passage the 
Marcionite says, φανερῶς λέγει ὁ σωτήρ᾽ ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι 


1 This, however, cannot invalidate the previous testi- 


ULL. 
mony; for though the Marcionites might repudiate the 
Gospel when it was against them, they might borrow from 
it an argument which would be authoritative in the eyes of 
their opponents, and in an early part of the discussion the 
Marcionite promises to prove his point from the Scriptures 
of his opponents.2 Accordingly the broad fact remains 
unimpaired that the Valentinians and the Marcionites acted 
upon quite different principles in their use of the Scriptures. 

The just conclusion, then, seems to be that the evidence 
afforded by what we know of Marcion is neutral; but we 
may fairly say that there is not a single fact inconsistent 
with the supposition that he knew our four Gospels and 
accepted the traditional account of their origin, but denied 
the authority of three of them on the ground that they were 
the work either of primitive and Judaic apostles or of men 
waio wrote under their immediate authority. 

1 Sect. 11., p. 314 Lom. ; p. 90 Van de S. Bak. 

2 P. 265 Lom. ; p. 18 Van de S. Bak. “Awd τῶν ὑμετέρων γραφῶν δείξω. 
That ὑμετέρων, not ἡμετέρων, which is given by the MSS., is the right 
reading, is not only apparent from the context, but from the statement of 


Adamantius, ἐπηγγείλω ἐκ τοῦ ἡμετέρου εὐαγγελίου δεικνύναι, in reply to the 
objection in our first quotation. 


CHAPTER ΧΙ 
BASILIDES 


THE dates of the birth and death of Basilides are not known. 
It is usually said that he flourished in the reign of Hadrian 
(117-138 A.D.), and there is no reason for doubting the 
correctness of this statement. He must therefore have been 
well acquainted with the belief and practice of Christians in 
the first quarter of the second century. Unfortunately his 
works, with the exception of a few fragments, are lost; aud 
in our present inquiry we are dependent on the account of lis 
system given by Hippolytus in his Refutatio. In the extrads 
which sketch the doctrine of Basilides, undoubted quotations 
from the Fourth Gospel are found; and our problem is to 
determine whether these extracts are taken from a work 
written by Basilides himself. 

The following passages occur: καὶ τοῦτο, φησίν, ἔστι τὸ 
λεγόμενον ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις" Ἣν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίξει 
πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον Again, Ὅτι δέ, 
φησίν, ἕκαστον ἰδίους ἔχει καιρούς, ἱκανὸς ὁ σωτὴρ λέγων Οὔπω 
ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου, καὶ οἱ μάγοι τὸν ἀστέρα τεθεαμένοι38 If these 
words were contained in a treatise written by Basilides, then 


1 This chapter, now slightly modified, appeared in the Journal of 
Brblical Laterature. Eleventh year, 1892, Part II. 
2 vii. 22, p. 360. My references are to Duncker and Schneidewin’s 
edition. 
5. vii, 27,.p.,376. 
296 


MARKS OF QUOTATION 207 


the Fourth Gospel must not only be of earlier date than many 
critics in modern times have supposed, but it must also have 
been included in a recognised collection of Gospels. The 
evidence which may be thus afforded has been summarily 
dismissed on the ground that Hippolytus! mentions Basilides, 
and Isidore his son, and πᾶς ὁ τούτων χορός, and then cites 
them collectively through the whole of the following para- 
graph by the word φησί. We have, then, to inquire, first, 
whether Hippolytus is citing the opinion of the school 
collectively, that is to say, is presenting the general Basilidean 
theory in his own words, or is quoting some particular person ; 
and if we decide that he is quoting, we must then inquire, in 
the second place, whether the person quoted is Basilides. 

The parenthetical word φησί is usually a mark of quotation, 
and I believe it is for this purpose that it is employed by 
Hippolytus. I have examined with some care the lengthy 
article on the Naasseni? with a view to ascertaining 
Hippolytus’ usage in this matter. Here we have an abundant 
use of φησί, but no clue to either book or author. He 
professes simply to give the opinion of the school, which, 
though having several divisions, is essentially one. Near the 
beginning? he has the parenthetical φασί, which applies, 
however, to a very short general statement. A few lines 
farther on he has φησί. Throughout the exposition, state- 
ments in the plural, φασί (four or five times, generally with 
the indirect construction), λέγουσι, etc., are mixed up with 
passages containing the parenthetical φησί. No one, I think, 
can read these passages without being convinced that he has 
to do with quotations from some book containing an authori- 
tative account of the views of these Gnostics. Whether he 


1 1 shall assume the correctness of the general opinion that Hippolytus 
is the author of the Philosophwmena, or Refutatio. 
2 vy. 6-11. 3 Bit92, ts67 


298 BASILIDES 


quotes from one or from several books we need not pause to 
consider, as there is nothing to indicate this except the style 
and tenor of the quotations. Any possible doubt as to 
whether the opinion of the school is cited in these places 
must, I think, be laid to rest by the appearance of the first 
person plural, ὃ μόνοις ἔξεστιν εἰδέναι τοῖς τελείοις, φησίν, ἡμῖν.1 
Again, ἃ ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν μόνοι3 Farther on, ἡμεῖς δέ, φησίν, ἐσμὲν 


3 Once more, ἤλθομεν, φησίν, οἱ πνευματικοί." 


οἱ τελῶναι. 

What we here learn represents, so far as I have observed, 
Hippolytus’ invariable usage. It is so, as we have seen, even 
in the article where the theories of Valentinus, Heracleon, 
Ptolemy, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τούτων σχολή, are dealt with The 
evidence is still more convincing in the article on Basilides. 
In the third and fourth lines of the very first quotation, where 
Basilides and his school are said to be cited collectively, are 
these words, Ὅταν δὲ λέγω, φησί, TO ἣν, οὐχ ὅτι ἣν λέγω, GAN ἵνα 


“΄- rn , ef e 
σημάνω τοῦτο ὅπερ βούλομαι δεῖξαι, λέγω, φησίν, ὅτι ἣν ὅλως 


ovdev.© Lower down on the same page we have, καὶ οὐ δέχομαι, 


φησί, κατλ. On the next page we have, τὸ de ἠθέλησε λέγω, 
φησί, x.7.r. On the next page, 6, τι dv λέγω, φησίν This 
last passage is particularly remarkable, because it is actually 
introduced by ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσιν, showing, as it seems to me, 
conclusively, that the opinions of the school are described in 
the express words of one of their number. Yet again we 
have, viol dé, φησίν, ἐσμὲν ἡμεῖς of πνευματικοίϑ Whatever 
may be thought of the first person plural, can we rationally 
believe that these sentences with the first person singular 
merely “quote the opinion of the school”? It seems to me, 
therefore, to be fairly established that our φησί iS, aS we 


A eS tee Be: FP SEB: 85. SP. 1600 hie 
4’ P. 164, 1. 70. . See also p. 172, 1. 13; p. 174, 1. 21, 25. - 
© vi, 20. ὃ vii. 20, pugge; gaye 


ΤΡ ον ἐς as. 8 vii. 25, p. 368, 1 77. 


one 


PROBABLY QUOTED BY HIPPOLYTUS 209 


_ should expect, indicative of genuine quotation from a particular 
~ author. | 

If this, then, be admitted, we must endeavour to answer 
the question, Who is it that is quoted? It may be one person 
throughout, or it may be now one, and now another. Are 
we, because this second alternative is possible, to dismiss the 
whole subject as incapable of affording any evidence? Surely 
not. Τὸ treat evidence as worthless because it is not demon- 
strative, is not the part of true criticism. It is precisely in 
these doubtful cases that critical judgment is required. We 
do not want the critic to help us when there can be no differ- 
ence of opinion, but it is his province, when a doubt is 
legitimate, to bring into view all the conditions which affect 
the question, and determine on which side the reasonable 
probability lies. 

There are two distinct lines of evidence. We must con- 
sider, first, what Hippolytus professes to do; and secondly, 
we must compare his statements with other accounts of the 
system of Basilides, and see whether these statements can be 
justly ascribed to the heresiarch himself. 

Now it seems most probable, from the connection of thought 
and from the recurrence of a particular name, that one 
authority is quoted throughout. That this authority is 
Basilides seems to be rendered highly probable by the 
following reasons. It is most unlikely that in an elaborate 
statement of this sort Hippolytus should fail to .go to the 
fountain-head, and especially without giving any intimation 
of the fact to his readers. He introduces his account with the 
words, δοκεῖ νῦν τὰ Βασιλείδου μὴ σιωπᾷν, alleging that the 
heretic’s views are those of Aristotle, not of Christ. He then 
devotes a few chapters to a synopsis of the doctrines of the 
Greek philosopher, and at the end proceeds in these words: 


1 vil. 14, p. 348. 


300 BASILIDES 


“Tf, then, Basilides be found, not in effect only, but even in 
the very words and names, transferring’ the opinions of 
Aristotle into our evangelical and saving doctrine, what will 
remain but that, having given back the foreign elements, we 
prove to his disciples that Christ will profit them nothing, 
as they are heathen? Basilides, then, and Isidorus, the 
genuine son and disciple of Basilides, affirm that Matthias 
has spoken to them secret discourses? which he heard from 
the Saviour, having been privately instructed. Let us see, 
then, how evidently Basilides at the same time and Isidorus 
and all the band of these men does not simply belie* Matthias 
only, but even the Saviour himself. There was a time, he 
says, when there was nothing.’* From this point he pro- 
ceeds with his quotations, repeatedly inserting φησί. It is 
true that in the course of his remarks he frequently alludes 
to Basilides and his followers in the plural number, as though 
he were stating the opinions of a sect rather than an 
individual. In all these instances, however, he is simply 
giving his own statements; and he sometimes supports his 
statements with a quotation introduced by the usual φησί. 
The obvious inference is that he quotes Basilides, and regards 
him as the accepted authority for the opinions of the school. 
But he also several times expressly names Basilides. The 
following are the instances: “For Basilides altogether avoids 
and fears the substances of the things that have come into 
being according to projection”;® here the next sentence has 
φησί. “Basilides calls such a thing, not wing, but ‘ Holy 
Spirit..”" “For the things that exist are divided by 

a eheawoliuenes. 5 λόγους ἀπο δ 

3 καταψεύδεται, in the singular. 

4 Hy, φησίν, ὅτε ἦν οὐδέν. Vii. 19-20, pp. 354, 356. 

δ See p. 356, 1. 84, 87; 358, 1. 95, 93 360, 1. 32, 45, 49; 366,1. 36; 368, 


1, 58, 69; 370, 1. 92 ; 372, 1. 41, 42, 44; 376, 1. 1, 6, 7; 378, 1. 12, 13, 14. 
© wily 22, th 360, 1.26, 27. 7 vil. 22, Pp. ΟΣ ΠΕΣ 


PURPOSE OF HIPPOLYTUS 301 


Basilides into two [which are] the prominent! and first 
. divisions, and are called according to him, the one thing 
indeed world, and the other thing supramundane [exis- 
tences|”?; after a few more lines of exposition there is the 
usual φησίν. “The account, therefore, which Aristotle has 
previously given concerning the soul and the body Basilides 
elucidates concerning the great Archon and his Son. For 
the Archon, according to Basilides, has begotten the Son,” 
etc.; and again, two lines farther down, “according to 
Basilides.”* Here the exposition is continued for nearly 
half a page, and ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν (that is, the Basilideans) introduced 
before φησί recurs. Hippolytus ends his whole dissertation 
on Basilides in these words, Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἃ καὶ 
. Βασιλείδης μυθεύει σχολάσας κατὰ τὴν Αἴγυπτον, καὶ παρ᾽ 
αὐτῶν τὴν τοσαύτην σοφίαν διδαχθεὶς ἐκαρποφόρησε τοιούτους 
καρπούς." It seems to me that the only reasonable conclusion 
from this evidence is that the extracts which Hippolytus 
brings before us were taken from a work by Basilides him- 
self, and especially as no motive is apparent for neglecting 
the works of the master in favour of those of any less dis- 
tinguished follower. 

One or two other weighty considerations must be added. 
Hippolytus, in his Procemium, tells us in very express words 
the plan of his work. In order to accomplish his purpose of 
exposing the sources of the heresies, he will adopt a course 
described in these words: “It seems good, therefore, having 
first expounded the opinions of the philosophers of the Greeks, 
to show the readers that they are more ancient and more 
reverent towards the Divinity than these; then to compare 
each heresy with each [philosopher] [so as to show] that the 


1 προεχεῖς, or “adjoining,” if we read προσεχεῖς. 
2 κατ᾽ αὐτόν. 3 vil. 23, Pe 364,1. 8-10. 
4 vii. 24, p. 366, 1. 46, 47, and 368, 1. 50. 5 vii. 27, p. 378, l. 40-42. 


302 BASILIDES 


leader of the heresy! having met with these attempts has 
laid claim to them, having taken their principles, and, starting 
from these towards what was worse, constructed a dogma.” ? 
After another sentence he proceeds: “In the beginning, then, 
we shall say who were those among the Greeks who first 
demonstrated natural philosophy. For the leaders of the 
heresies? have become doctrine-stealers* of these especially, 
as we shall afterwards show in comparing them with one 
another. Rendering back his own to each of those who first 
began, we shall present the heresiarchs* naked and shameful.” 
The purpose thus clearly formed and deliberately expressed he 
has not forgotten, when at the opening of the Fifth Book he 
proceeds to his refutation. He there says: “It remains, 
therefore, to proceed to the refutation of the heresies, for 
the sake of which we have expounded the things already 
spoken by us, from which having taken their starting-points 
the heresiarchs® like cobblers, having patched together, 
according to their own mind, the blunders of the ancients, 
have presented them as new to those capable of being 
deceived, as we shall show in the following [books].”" After 
these statements, when Hippolytus tells us that he is goig to 
“state the opinions of Basilides,” and that he will give a 
synopsis of the doctrines of Aristotle, “in order that the 
reader, through the nearer comparison of these, may easily 
perceive that the [doctrines put forward] by Basilides are 
Aristotelian sophisms,”* and winds up by saying that “these 
are the fables which Basilides tells,” it does seem probable 
that the elaborate account, so largely given in the form of 
apparent quotations, is drawn from Basilides himself. This 
probability is still further strengthened by the summary in 


1 Ὁ πρωτοστάτης“ τῆς αἱρέσεως. 2. Ῥ 6. 
3 Οἱ τῶν αἱρέσεων πρωτοστατήσαντες. 4 Κλεψίλογοι. 
5 Τοὺς αἱρεσιάρχας. 6 Of αἱρεσιάρχαι. 


7 v. 6, p. 130. 8 vii. 14, p. 348. 


ISIDORE AND THE SCHOOL 303 


the Tenth Book. Here “Isidore and the whole band” do 
not put in an appearance. The chapter begins, Βασιλείδης δὲ 
καὶ αὐτὸς λέγει εἶναι θεὸν οὐκ ὄντα, and ends, Ταῦτα δὲ καὶ 
Βασιλείδης τερατολογῶν οὐκ αἰσχύνεται. 

Against all this, which seems to me not contemptible evi- 
dence, one fact is alleged. Hippolytus mentions Basilides 
and Isidore, his son, and πᾶς 6 τούτων χορός, just before he 
begins his citations. So he does; but what does he say 
about them? Not that he is going to cite their opinions, 
and quote indiscriminately from their literature, but only 
that Basilides and his son affirmed that Matthias had spoken 
to them secret doctrines, and that father and son and the 
whole lot of them belied Matthias, and even the Saviour 
himself. Is it not the most reasonable way to endeavour to 
establish this last statement by drawing from the fountain- 
head the doctrines which were alleged to be those of 
Matthias? I can see no tendency in the words to prove 
that Hippolytus is going to depart from his plan of dealing 
with the leaders of the heresies, and to quote with indis- 
criminate carelessness any writer of the school that suits 
his fancy. Appeal might further be made to statements, 
already referred to, in which the plural number is used, 
showing that Hippolytus had the school in his mind. But 
this fact does not seem to me to establish any counter 
probability; for the opinions of the master may very 
legitimately be ascribed to the school; but it would not 
be legitimate, on the other hand, to ascribe to Basilides 
what was only the opinion of one of his unknown followers. 
The probabilities, therefore, appear to me to be all on one 
side, and make it reasonable to suppose that Hippolytus, 
unless he has written with almost criminal carelessness, is 
quoting from Basilides himself. 


1 C. 14, pp. 514, 516. 


304 BASILIDES 


There is, however, a wholly different line of evidence, — 


which, I think, when fairly considered, leads to the same 
result. The account which Hippolytus gives of the system 
of Basilides stands entirely alone, so much so that it is diffi- 
cult to understand how the section of his master Irenzeus upon 
this subject can relate to the same man. After careful com- 
parison and sifting, our ultimate authorities for the teaching 
of Basilides, in addition to the Refutation of Hippolytus, are 
Irenzeus (or the writer whom he copied), the Compendium of 
Hippolytus (represented by part of the account in Epiphanius, 
by Philaster, and the anonymous supplement to Tertullian, 
De prescript. heret.), and also scattered statements in 


Clement of Alexandria, a few particulars from the Refutation 


of Agrippa Castor (preserved by Eusebius, H. #., iv. 7), and 
“probably a passing reference and quotation in the Acts of 
Archelaus.”1 We have, therefore, practically to decide 
whether the account of Hippolytus or that of his master 
Ireneus is the more authentic. Now, if any one read these 
two accounts, knowing nothing of their origin, I think he 
would have no hesitation in saying that the former has far 
more marks of authenticity than the latter. Ireneus is 
content with a brief summary, and quotes from no original 
authority. Though he gives the doctrine as that of Basilides, 
there is no difficulty in supposing that he confined himself to 
the current opinions of the school. Hippolytus, on the other 
hand, produces an elaborate statement, which is evidently 
summarised, and to a remarkable extent quoted, from some 
single source; and this work, whatever it may have been, 
was produced by a man of thought and originality. The 
latter fact in itself points to Basilides, because, with the 
exception of his son Isidore, he was not, like Valentinus, 
followed by a succession of celebrated disciples. This view is 


1 See Hort, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, i. 270. 


~ 


᾿ 


ACCOUNT OF IRENZUS 305 


_ confirmed by a closer inspection. Soon after the beginning 
of his article Ireneus introduces dicwnt, and far the greater 
part of the statement is in the indirect construction. Farther 
on he has utuntur, annuntiant, nituntur, dicunt, aiwnt, 
and a few more similar plurals. Twice, however, he has ait, 
and in one of these instances the words seem to be quoted. 
I think we may fairly infer from these appearances that 
Irenzus used a secondary source, and not the work of Basilides 
himself, but that this source may have contained statements 
which were avowedly quoted from Basilides. It is interesting, 
then, to inquire whether these sayings are in harmony with 
the representations of Hippolytus. The first saying is the 
following: “If any one therefore confesses the crucified, he is 
still a servant, and under the power of those who made bodies ; 
but he who has denied him has been freed indeed from them, 
but knows the disposition of the unborn Father.” ! There is 
no such statement in Hippolytus, but I think it is not, in 
substance, inconsistent with the doctrine which he describes. 
The whole object of the Passion was to bring about the sorting 
of the things confused, and so restore everything to its proper 
stage of being. Accordingly the bodily part of Jesus suffered, 
and was restored to the formlessness; the psychical part rose 
up, and was restored to the Hebdomad ; and he raised up that 
which belonged to the summit, and it remained beside the 
great Archon.2 This doctrine would supply a philosophical 
ground for not confessing the Crucified; for such a confession 
would be an attachment to the bodily part of Jesus, and 
involve a continuance in the lowest stage of being; but the 
sons (the spiritual*) were ultimately to ascend πρὸς τὸν ἄνω 
πατέρα, The reason given by Irenzus, that Jesus did not 
suffer at all, but Simon of Cyrene was crucified in his place, 
1 Tren., I. xXiv. 4. 2 Hippol., p. 378. 


SB. R65, 4. ZH) 28: © PeiraG: by. % 
20 


306 BASILIDES 


while Jesus looked on and laughed, is, to say the least, more 
worthy of commonplace followers than of the distinguished 
founder of the school. The other ait only introduces the 
indirect statement that prophecies were from:the fabricators 
of the world, but the Law from their chief, who led out the 
people from the land of Egypt. This agrees, at least in its 
general idea, with the statement of Hippolytus that it was the 
Archon of the Hebdomad that spoke to Moses, and that all 
the prophets that were before the Saviour spoke from thence." 
It is also perhaps worth noticing that in one parenthetical 
passage where Hippolytus places himself in agreement with 
Ireneus by referring to the doctrine of three hundred and 
sixty-five heavens, and the name of Abrasax given in con- 
sequence to the great Archon, he does not quote, but uses the 
expressions κατ᾽ αὐτούς and φάσκουσι. A simple comparison, 
therefore, of the two accounts seems to show that Hippolytus 
gives the truer representation of the original system. 

We have, however, other means of judging.2 Clement of 
Alexandria gives a quotation of some length from the twenty- 
third book of the Exegetica of Basilides,? and we are thus 
assured of what we might antecedently have expected, that 
he at all events was acquainted with the writings of the 
heresiarch. In the course of the Stromata he refers several 


times to Basilides, and several times also to his followers. 


In the latter instances he alludes simply to the teaching of 
the school, without any intimation that what is alleged 
is inconsistent with the doctrine of Basilides himself, except 
in one case in which he contrasts the immorality of the 
later Basilideans with the teaching of the founders of the 

+ PS 770. 

2 The comparison with Clement of Alexandria has been well treated by 
Dr Hort in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, but I have gone over 


the ground carefully for myself. 
3 Strom., iv. pp. 599, 600 (Potter’s edition). 


ACCOUNT OF CLEMENT - 307 


school. It is a fair assumption, therefore, that the allusions 
in Clement contain, so far as they go, a much more trust- 
worthy representation of the original system than the account 
of Ireneus. But we must remember that in the Stromata we 
have no detailed exposition, which was reserved for the lost 
Hypotyposes, and moreover the Stromata profess to deal with 
practical and moral rather than theoretical questions," while 
Hippolytus, on his side, treats only of the general theory of 
the universe. It is, consequently, only in quite casual points 
that we can look for any contact between Clement and 
Hippolytus. We will notice these points of contact in the 
order of the system. 

First of ἀμφὶ τὸν Βασιλείδην were accustomed to speak of 
the passions as appendages, προσαρτήματα, which were in 
essence spirits attached to the rational soul, “according to 
a primitive disturbance and confusion,” κατά τινα τάραχον Kat 
σύγχυσιν apxixnv.2 This description is regarded as representing 
ὁ κατὰ Βασιλείδην ἄνθρωπος, So that here the teaching of the. 
followers is expressly identified with that of the master. 
This “primitive confusion” receives its explanation from the 
doctrine of a σπέρμα κόσμου, which was the first creation, and 
contained in itself πᾶσαν τὴν τοῦ κόσμου πανσπερμίαν, that is 
to say, all the seminal principles of the universe.2 The whole 
hypothesis turned on this σύγχυσις οἱονεὶ πανσπερμίας," which 
existed ἐν ἀρχῇ The confusion is frequently expressed by 
the term ἀμορφία. It deserves notice that in arguing against 
the Basilideans Clement refers to τοῦ σπέρματος τῆς ἄνωθεν 
οὐσίας, and τὸ ἄνωθεν σπέρμα, existing in man.’ The system 
expounded by Hippolytus explains this. 

1 See Hort, who gives references. 

2 Clem., Strom., li. 20, p. 488. 3 Hippol., vii. 21. 

4 Ibid., c. 27, near end. 5 P. 376, 1. 95. 


ὁ P. 364, 1. 95; 370, 1.53 3741. 48, 49; 378, 1. 22, 24, 25, 38. 
7 Strom., ii. 8, p. 449. 


308 BASILIDES 


Secondly, in speaking of election, Basilides distinguishes 
between the κόσμος and that which is ὑπερκόσμιον The 
same distinction between the cosmic and the hypercosmic is 
ascribed to the followers of Basilides.? Hippolytus tells us 
that Basilides divided τὰ ὄντα into two principal classes, 
which he called κόσμος and trepkocpta.® 

Thirdly, in connection with this distinction the followers 
of Basilides spoke of an appropriate faith and election accord- 
ing to each interval or stage of being, καθ᾽ ἕκαστον διάστημα." 
We learn from its frequent use in Hippolytus that διάστημα 
was the regular term for denoting successive spheres of 
existence.° 

Fourthly, Basilides supposes that justice and her daughter 
peace remain in the ogdoad.® According to Hippolytus what 
was called the ogdoad was the realm of the great Archon, 
who with the help of his wiser son, created the ethereal 
region beyond the moon.’ He does not, however, inform 
us why it was so named, or how the number eight was 
made up. 

Fifthly, Clement alludes to the Archon as “the very great 
God, celebrated in song by them.”* If we took the superlative 
in the sense of the greatest of all, it would not be true to 
the system described by Hippolytus; but the sense of “very 
great” is sufficient for the argument, and is indeed, as we 
shall see, implied by the context. Hippolytus says that the 
great Archon throbbed through® and was born from the 

1 Strom., iv. 26, p. 639. 2 Of ἀπὸ Βασ., Strom., ii. 3, p. 434. 

3 C. 23, p. 364, 1. 8-10. See also c. 25, beginning ; c. 23, p. 366, 1. 23 ; 
275 ΡΒ 370, 1.3: 

4 Strom., ii. 3, Ὁ. 434. 

© C, 22, p. 364, 1. 95; 6. 24, p. 368, 1. 63; ὁ, 25, p. 370, L Senge sumeeoe 
Ῥ. 372,1. 41; 6. 27, p. 374, 1. 77; p. 376, 1. 79; p. 378, 1. 21. 

6 Strom., iv. 25, p. 637. ΤΟ. 23, 24. 

ὃ Τὸν μέγιστον καὶ πρὸς αὐτῶν ἀνυμνούμενον θεόν, Strom., ii. 8, p. 449. 

9 Διέσφυξε. 


ACCOUNT OF CLEMENT 309 


cosmic seed, and was the head of the Cosmos, a beauty and 
greatness and power incapable of dissolution; “for, he says, 
he is more unspeakable than unspeakable things, and more 
powerful than things powerful, and wiser than things wise, 
and better than all the beautiful things whatsoever thou 
mayest mention.”! Farther on he is called τὸν ἀρρήτων 
ἀρρητότερον θεόν Still, as we shall see under the next head, 
he had his limitations. 

Sixthly, Clement makes a very remarkable statement 
about the Archon. The followers of Basilides interpreting 
the saying, “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom,” 
“affirm that the Archon himself, when he heard the declara- 
tion of the ministering Spirit, was astonished at what he 
heard and saw, having had a gospel preached to him beyond 
his hopes,? and that his astonishment was called fear, and 
became the beginning of wisdom that sorts and distinguishes 
and perfects and restores.” What this gospel was, and how 
it came, we are not told; nor is it explained why the Archon 
was so astonished. We only learn from a later allusion that 
before his astonishment he was in ignorance*~ When we 
turn to Hippolytus, all becomes clear. The Holy Spirit, 
being unable to ascend to the highest regions, remained as a 
firmament between the hypercosmical things and the Cosmos; 
and, when the great Archon was born from the cosmic seed, 
he ascended as far as the firmament, which he took for the 
ultimate limit. He was wiser and more powerful than 
everything beneath, except the remnant of sonship that was 
still left in the πανσπερμία; and, since he was ignorant® 
that this sonship was wiser and better than himself, he 
thought that he was Lord and Sovereign. However, he 
produced a son much better and wiser than himself, whom 


1 C. 23, p. 366. 2 C. 24, p. 368,1. 51. 3 Tlap ἐλπίδας εὐηγγελισμένον. 
4 "Avvo. See Strom., ii. 8, pp. 448, 449. ὃ. Ἠγνόει. 


310 BASILIDES 


he seated at his right hand.! The gospel came, not by 
descent, but by action at a distance; for the power of sonship 
in the midst of the Holy Spirit in the border-region com- 
municated the thoughts of sonship to the son of the great 
Archon.2 The gospel came first to the Archon through his 
son, and the Archon learned that he was not God of the © 
Universe, but was begotten, and had above him the treasure 
of the unspeakable and unnameable Not-Being and of the 
sonship; and he feared, understanding in what ignorance he 
was. “This,” he says, “is what has been said, the fear οὗ 
the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” This is the wisdom 
of which the Scripture says, “Not in words which man’s 
wisdom teaches, but which the Spirit teaches.” 

Seventhly, under the last head we met a wisdom that sorts 
and restores, φυλοκρινητική and ἀποκαταστατική, and on the 
next page there is a reference to the φυλοκρίνησις and ἀποκα- : 
τάστασις. With this we may connect one or two statements 
which serve to illustrate the process. “The followers of 
Basilides affirm that there is at the same time an appropriate * 
faith and election according to each stage of being; and 
conformably again to the hypercosmic election the cosmic 
faith of all nature follows; and that the gift of faith too 
is correspondent with the hope of each.”> The meaning 
apparently is that each stage of being has its predetermined 
end which it may hope to attain, and is provided with a 
faith adapted to the attainment of this end. Agreeably to 
this view Basilides represented the election as foreign to the 
Cosmos, since it was by nature hypercosmic,® and supposed 
that man knew God by nature, so that faith was not the 
rational assent of a self-determining soul, but a beauty of 


ΟΖ Ρε 366. ΣΟ ΡΞ. 


3 Ἐν οἵᾳ ἦν ἀγνοίᾳ. 4 Οἰκείαν. 


5 Strom., li. 3, Ὁ. 434. δ Strom., iv. 26, p. 639. 


ACCOUNT OF CLEMENT 311 


immediate creation1 We may suppose, then, that part of 
the process of sorting and restoring consists in separating 
the election from the Cosmos, and restoring it to the 
hypercosmic place which naturally belongs to it. Hippolytus 
does not deal with election and faith; but his statements, so 
far as they relate to the same subjects, are in complete agree- 
ment with the representations of Clement. The third 
sonship, requiring purification, remained behind in the great 
heap of the πανσπερμία, when the other two sonships had 
gone aloft”; and this sonship was in time to be revealed and 
restored * to the higher region, above the limiting spirit; and 
Basilides said that the spiritual men were sons left behind to 
fashion and make perfect the souls below, that had a nature 
to remain in this stage of being.* Here there is clearly a 
doctrine of election, though the word is not used, and also 
the idea of a superior nature confined for a time within the 
lower, from which it. was destined to be restored to the place 
which properly belonged to it. To effect this the Gospel came.? 
And when the whole Sonship was above the limiting Spirit, 
then the creation would be pitied, and God would bring upon 
the whole Cosmos “the great ignorance,” in order that all 
things might remain according to nature, and nothing desire 
anything that was contrary to nature. Thus there would be 
a restoration ® of all things in their own seasons. For their 
whole hypothesis is σύγχυσις οἱονεὶ πανσπερμίας Kat φυλο- 
κρίνησις Kal ἀποκατάστασις τῶν συγκεχυμένων εἰς Ta οἰκεῖα.ἵ 
Jesus became the first-fruits of the sorting,§ and the whole 
object of the Passion was that the things confused might be 
sorted.? 


1 Strom., v. 1, pp. 644, 645. See also 11. 3, beginning, p. 433. 


2 C. 22. 3 ταποκατασταθῆναι. 
2: O.28, 5 Ihd. 
ὃ »Αποκατάστασις. 7 The Greek is found p. 378, 1. 33-35. 


8 Φυλοκρίνησις. ¥.0) 275 pi! 378, 135 a. 


312 BASILIDES 


These coincidences in thought and phraseology are suffi- 
ciently remarkable to establish a close relationship between 
the account of Hippolytus and the genuine Basilides, and to 
prove that he is nearer the original source than Ireneeus and 
other writers, who contain hardly a trace of the system which 
was in the hands of Clement, and none of its characteristic 
terms. Indeed, so irreconcilable is the account of Irenxus 
with the allusions of Clement, that, before the publication of 
Hippolytus, Neander remarked that “had not Clement of 
Alexandria spoken of the existence among certain false 
followers of Basilides of practical errors precisely similar to 
those we meet with in this sect, we might be led to suspect 
that the so-called Basilideans of Irenzeus had no connection 
whatever with Basilides.”! On the other hand, we are 
justified by the above coincidences in asserting that the 
Basilides of Hippolytus is the same as the Basilides of 
Clement. 


It may be well, however, to produce positive proof that 


Irenzeus does not describe the opinions of the founder of the 
sect; for we have stronger evidence than the mere want of 
coincidence with Clement’s scattered allusions. He says that, 
in the view which he is describing, Jesus did not suffer, but 
made Simon of Cyrene suffer in his place, and seems to imply 
a thoroughly Docetic notion of his person. By later writers 
this Docetism is unmistakably affirmed.2 Not only is there 
no trace of this in Clement, but the reality of Christ’s 
humanity and Passion is assumed, even though it drives 
Basilides to a conclusion which he is reluctant to admit. He 
thinks that all suffering is a punishment for sin, either 
actual or potential, in the person suffering; and when pressed 


1 History of the Christian Religion and Church, ii., p. 113, note i, Bohn’s 
edition, 
2 Pseudo-Tert. ; Epiph., Her., xxiv. 4. 


, 


IRENAUS IN ERROR 313 


with the case of “such a one,’! that he sinned, for he 


suffered, he would answer he did not sin, but was like the 
suffering infant. But if urged, he would say, that man, 
whomsoever you may name, is man, and God is just. 
Clement, in reasoning upon this view, says that Basilides 
dared to call the Lord ἄνθρωπον ἁμαρτητικόν." This is the 
passage where the twenty-third book of the Exegetica is 
quoted, so that there can be no doubt that the real Basilides 
was anything but a Docetist, and that Irenzeus was ignorant 
of his teaching. On the other hand, Hippolytus distinctly 
recognises the necessity of the Passion® to inaugurate the 
final sorting and restoration, and sets Docetism aside by 
affirming that the bodily part of Jesus suffered. He more- 
over makes the very important statement that after the 
birth of Jesus “all the things relating to the Saviour 
happened according to them® in the same way as they have 
been written in the Gospels”;® for this shows that he 
identifies the doctrine of the followers with that of the 
Master, and not vice versd, since he deliberately contradicts 
the account given by Irenzus of the later and degenerate 
school. He does not touch on the moral question, as this did 
not come within the scope of his plan. 

Again, Irenus says they recognised the moral indifference 
of actions, and of universal licentiousness. Epiphanius attri- 
butes the most immoral teaching to Basilides himself.’ 
Clement tells us that Basilideans, who were evidently (from 
the context) living in his own time, were more intemperate 
than those who were most intemperate among the Gentiles, and 
they defended their evil lives by an abuse of the real principles 

1 Ὁ δεῖνα, understood by Clement, who had the context before him, to 
mean Christ. 

2 Strom., iv. 12, p. 600 sq. 3 Τὸ πάθος. 


4 P. 378. 5 Kart’ αὐτούς. 
6 Ibid. ’ Her., xxiv. 3. 


314 BASILIDES 


of Basilides, for they pleaded that they had authority even : 
to sin on account of their perfection, or that they would 
certainly be saved even if they sinned now, on account of 
the inborn election. But he is so far from ascribing immoral 
teaching to Basilides himself that he warns these unworthy 
followers that the forefathers of their dogmas did not allow 
them to do these things; and he quotes a passage from the 
Ethics of Isidorus in order to confute them.! This is a point 
on which Hippolytus does not touch, and there is nothing 
in his account to suggest that Basilides was anything but a 
high-minded man. 

I think, then, we may say that it is demonstrated that 
Irenzeus does not represent the opinions of the heresiarch. 

We do not appreciate the full meaning of Hippolytus’ 
departure from Irenzus till we observe that he not only was 
acquainted with the work of the latter against heresies, and 
made use of it in his treatise, but that in immediate con- 
nection with Basilides he transcribed a whole section, with- 
out acknowledgment, from the older writer. Irenzeus classes 
together Saturninus or Satornilus and Basilides, and treats 
first of the former. Hippolytus also places the two in juxta- 
position, but reverses the order. The article on the Syrian 
heretic he simply copies from his predecessor. But of 
Basilides he gives a far fuller and entirely different account. 
What could induce him to do so except the discovery that 
Ireneus was ill-informed, and the acquisition of what he 
believed to be the authentic source of the heresy? He may 
have made it his business to procure a copy of the Exegetica, 
or induced some friend in Alexandria (possibly Origen?) to 
send him the necessary extracts. At all events he rejects the 
follies current in the West, and brings before us the same 
strong and serious thinker that we meet in Clement. 


1 Strom., ili. I, pp. 509, 510. 


PHRASEOLOGY 315 


One other consideration remains. Clement, as has been 
said, gives us a quotation of some length from Basilides; 
does it admit of any fruitful comparison with Hippolytus ? 
I think it does, though the subject treated does not fall 
within the range of the cosmical theory. It is a favourite 
notion in Hippolytus that the third sonship was left behind 
in the πανσπερμία, εὐεργετεῖν καὶ εὐεργετεῖσθαι. It is there- 
fore noticeable that, in Clement’s extract, the infant who 
suffers without having previously sinned (at least in the 
present world) εὐεργετεῖται. Another resemblance is found 
in the frequency with which the first person singular is used, 
φημί, λέγω, ἴδω, ἐρῶ (five times). We have seen that the 
first person is similarly used in the quotations of Hippolytus, 
and I venture to suggest that this feature is more suited to 
the master defending his own thesis than to some obscure 
disciple arguing on behalf of another. These are certainly 
minor points, but they are not without their interest and 
value in connection with the more substantial argument 
which has preceded. 

It may be worth while noticing in this connection that in 
another passage where Clement cites the opinion of Basilides, 
though he does not quote him verbatim, we meet the words 
οὐσία, φύσις, ὑπόστασις, συγκατάθεσις, κτίσις, Showing, so far as 
they go, the Greek character of the system. Of these words 
we meet in Hippolytus with φύσις, οὐσία, and κτίσις 5 The 
two former words are far too common in philosophical dis- 
cussion for any stress to be laid on them; but the doctrine 


1 P. 364,1. 2, 3; 368, 1. 71; 374, 1. 64, 65 ; 378, 1. 31, 39. 
2 Strom., v. 1, p. 645. 
3 P. 362, 1. 78-80; p. 368, 1. 64; p. 374, 1. 76; p. 376, 1. 78, 86, 93, 
94, 4. 
ΠΡ 355, || ἡ Pe 300, be 23,27. 
5 P. 360, 1. 20; p. 366, 1. 37; p. 372, 1. 31; p. 376, 1. 92, as well as in a 
passage quoted from St Paul, p. 368, 1.75 ; p. 370, 1. 96. 


316 BASILIDES 


) 


that a man knows God by nature falls in with the ρῥἱοῦσσθ. 
of the regulative power of nature presented by Hippolytus. 

To complete our investigation we must consider the evidence 
which is advanced to prove that the system described by 
Hippolytus is of later date than that which we find in 
Irenzus. The question has been re-examined by Hans 
Stahelin in Gebhardt and Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, 
VI. Band, Heft 3, in an essay on Die gnostischen Quellen 
Hvppolyts, u.s.w., 1890. The author starts with a reference 
to an article by Dr Salmon, on “The cross-references in the 
‘ Philosophumena,’” which appeared in Hermathena in 1885.1 

Dr Salmon pointed out that there were several suspicious 
agreements between the alleged writings of different sects 
quoted by Hippolytus; and among other hypotheses by which 
these might be explained, he suggested that possibly some 
forger had passed them off upon a writer who was known to 
be a collector of such goods. The main purpose of Stahelin is 
to examine thoroughly the question which was thus raised ; 
but he does not confine himself to this line of argument. The 
more obscure heresies do not at present concern us, and we 
must restrict our inquiry to the case of Basilides. 

The hypothesis of forgery would seem to me extremely 
precarious if there were far more resemblances of thought and 
language than are actually found between the Basilides of 
Hippolytus and his other heretics; for forms of opinion and — 
of speech are apt to become current at any given time, and 
there is no improbability in the supposition that successive 
heretics were acquainted with the writings of their pre- 
decessors, and may even have unconsciously borrowed from 
them many a phrase or metaphor. However, the points of 
contact in the chapters on Basilides are very few. The one 
on which Stahelin ? relies most is merely an emphatic way of 


1 Pp. 389-402. ΞΡ Soe 


HYPOTHESIS OF FORGERY 317 


expressing “every possible thing.” In four parallel passages 
there is some resemblance in the turn of expression, and in all 
of them some part of the very ordinary word παραλείπω occurs ; 
but the phrases in each case are different, and afford no proof 
of direct literary connection. 

Another parallel with the Sethians is pointed out,? which 
is much more striking at first sight than it is on closer 
examination. The Sethians had two principles, ight and 
darkness. Between them was pure spirit; and this spirit (or 
breath) was not like a wind or a breeze, but like “an odour of 
an unguent or of incense.”? Under Basilides we are told 
that the Holy Spirit retained an odour of the sonship which 
had left it, as a vessel, though empty, retains “an odour of 
an unguent’”* which was once within 1035 Here the notion of 
a sweet-smelling unguent is connected with the Spirit; but it 
is employed in one case to distinguish the Spirit from any- 
thing so rough and strong as wind, whereas with Basilides the 
Spirit is the στερέωμα, and the figure of the unguent is totally 
different. The latter has a far closer parallel in Horace,— 
“Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit odorem Testa diu.” 6 
The two figures borrowed from a perfume are each so apt for 
the purpose of the writer that they may easily be independent 
of one another; and the common notion of a dividing Spirit 
has its source evidently in Genesis 1. 

Another parallel to the Sethians is found in the fact that, 
according to them, the object of Christ’s coming was “to 
disunite and separate the things that have been mingled.”” 
This is proved by the saying, “I came not to bring peace on 
the earth, but a sword.” So Basilides is made to say that 


1 The passages are p. 200, l. 60 84. ; p. 238, 1. 90 84. ; p. 358, 1. 16 86. ; 


p- 426, 1. 19 sq. <P 237 
3 μύρου Tis ὀσμὴ ἢ θυμιάματος, V. 19, Pp. 200, ]. 71. 4 μύρου ὀσμή. 
5 vii, 22, p. 364, 1. 87 sq. 6 Ep., τ. ii. 69, 70. 


T v.21, p.212, 1. 61, διχάσαι καὶ χωρίσαι τὰ συγκεκραμένα. Stihelin, p. 26 sq. 


318 BASILIDES 


Jesus is “the first-fruits of the sorting of the things that 
have been confused.”! Here the resemblance is confined to 
the idea, for the words are quite different. But the ideas, 
when examined, are found to belong to opposite schools of — 
thought. The Sethians were dualists, or rather believers in 
three principles, and maintained that the consummation of 
things consisted in the separation of the light and the Spirit 
from the darkness; Basilides was a monist, and supposed that 
the world-process consisted in evolving and sorting into — 
distinct classes the implicit and mingled contents of the 
cosmic seed. The fact that Basilides refers to the creative | 
Word in Genesis, and has a couple of allusions to light as | 
representing the good influences from above, can prove 
nothing; for figures borrowed from light are a common 
property of religious thinkers. The two systems are utterly 
different, and unlike in everything except the very casual 
resemblances which have been mentioned. On the other hand, 
there is a connection between the Sethians and the Basilideans 
of Clement in the use of the word τάραχος." It would be 
strange indeed if in a mass of speculation belonging to the 
same period of the world’s thought, and to schools more or 
less closely related to one another, we did not find resemblances 
quite as marked as those which have been produced. 

Dr Salmon calls attention to the mention of naphtha in 
illustration of the thought; but in the case of the Perate* the 
point of the comparison is that naphtha draws fire to itself, but 
nothing else, whereas with Basilides* it is that it acts on fire 
even at a very great distance. Stahelin admits that the figure 
was too common to serve the purpose of the argument.° 

That there should be some similarities between Basilides 


1 P, 378, 1. 16, 17, ἀπαρχὴ τῆς φυλοκρινήσεως . . . τῶν συγκεχυμένων. 
4. B204,.1. 50, 3 P. 1908, hi 33, ae 
4 Pe 370,503, 4. 5 Povgas 


HYPOTHESIS OF FORGERY 319 


and Valentinus, who were contemporary teachers, and both 
trained in Alexandrian learning, is not surprising. Stihelin! 
points out a connection between the great Archon of the one 
and the Demiurge of the other; each supposed that he was 
the supreme God. But there the resemblance ends. The 
Demiurge of Valentinus is μωρὸς καὶ ἄνους, and does not 
know that he is the unwitting instrument of wisdom in the 
creation of the world.?, What a contrast this presents to the 
description of the great Archon already given, 6 μέγας σοφός, 
who made things with the recognized help of his wiser Son? 
Again, Valentinus applies the verse in Proverbs, “The fear 
of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” to the Demiurge,* 
as Basilides does to the great Archon. He does so, however, 
in a totally different connection. We have seen that Clement 
supports Hippolytus in saying that the Basilideans applied 
this verse to the astonishment of the Archon; and in the 
same place Clement expresses the opinion that Valentinus had 
similar thoughts in his mind in a passage quoted from an 
epistle of his. This may show that Clement did not remember 
any more direct application of the text by Valentinus, and is, 
so far, unfavourable to the article on that heretic; but it only 
confirms the account of Basilides. That both make a similar 
use of “the revelation of the sons of God,” and of the saying, 
“T am the God of Abraham,” etc.; that both distinguish the 
God of the Old Testament from the Supreme Being; and that 
both adopt the term “ Hebdomad,” is no more than might be 
reasonably expected, for we are not comparing two systems 
which originated in China and Peru, but two which sprang 
out of the same contemporaneous culture and the same 
tendencies of thought, and between which there might be a 
direct literary connection. 


1 P, 28 sqq. 2 vi. 33, 34, p- 282, 1. 22, 23; p. 284, 1. 72-75. 
3 P. 366, 1. 38-40. 4 P. 280, 1. 96-08. 


320 BASILIDES 


Dr Salmon, who suspects this Basilides to be a Valentinian 


in disguise, calls attention to the Valentinian technical words, — 


δημιουργός, ἔκτρωμα, τόπος. Δημιουργός, however, is a very 
common word for creator, and it is not used’ in any technical 


sense by Basilides. He uses δημιουργήσαντος of the Supreme — 


Not-being God. The term δημιουργός 18 applied to both 
Archons.2. Moreover, this sort of language is not confined 
to the account in Hippolytus. In the short article of 
Theodoret® we find δημιουργία and δημιουργῆσαι. "Ἐκτρωμα 
is used once, of the sonship left behind in the formlessness ; 
but it is obvious from the context that the expression is 
borrowed from St Paul,t and not from Valentinus, the whole 
conception being supported by quotations from the Hpistles, 
and an application of the Apostle’s experience to the destinies 
of this third sonship. The word τόπος is found twice: “This 
place is called Hebdomad,”?* and, the first sonship left the 
Holy Spirit “in an appropriate place.”® “Place” is not a very 
distinctive word, and as a variation from τόπος we meet with 
χωρίον and χώρα3ϑ Epiphanius too employs the word τοπο- 
θεσία in describing the system of Basilides,? and Irenzus 
mentions the locales positiones of the heavens. Clement, too, 
in arguing against Basilides, refers to cosmic things as τὸν 
τόπον. Some such terms are required by the theory; but 
διάστημα is the technical word. We may concede that the 
«μεθόριον πνεῦμα of this Basilides” is “closely related to the 
Valentinian pos.” But the ideas which are represented by 
such phrases may be common to two systems which are funda- 


ΠΡ Gg 197: 
2 To the great one, p. 366, ]. 38, 40; to the second, p. 368, 1. 60; p. 378, 
1. 20. Once the reference is not quite clear, p. 374, 1. 62. 


3 Heeret. fab. compend., I. iv. 4 τ Cor, xv. 8. 
8, P3266, ἢ: SO. 6 PL 37601on, 
7 P. 362, 1. 82; p. 364, 1. 84, 85. 8 Ῥ 376, ΘΕ 


9 Her., xxiv. 7. 10 Strom., iv. 26, p. 639. 


” Se ee 


HYPOTHESIS OF FORGERY 321 


mentally distinct. We have a more striking example of the 
use of the same technical term in Epiphanius’ express ascrip- 
tion to the Basilideans of the word ὑστέρημα, which we 
associate with the doctrine of Valentinus. It is also to be 
observed that Clement more than once couples Basilides or his 
followers with Valentinus. He does so in the passage already 
referred to about “the fear of the Lord.” He does so again in 
connection with the Basilidean doctrine that the passions were 
appendages? to the soul,? and once more in reference to the 
natural eternity of genus. I am therefore unable to see that 
the common terms and ideas which faintly tinge these two 
systems have any tendency to prove that the account in 
Hippolytus is a Valentinian forgery.° 

Stahelin seems to feel how very precarious this line of 
reasoning is, and relies more upon the internal inconsistencies 
and follies of the system described by Hippolytus, and its 
deviations from older and more authentic accounts. One or 
two slight inconsistencies of expression, such as the ascrip- 
tion of beauty to the “Not-being God,” who was above all 
predicates, are no proof of want of originality. These are 
only the inevitable failure of even strong thinkers to maintain 
themselves throughout at the same high level of abstract 
thought. There is, however, one inconsistency which may 
be considered too serious to be reconciled with unity of 
authorship. In speaking of the three hundred and sixty- 
five heavens the writer appears to commit himself to a 
system of emanation instead of his usual evolution.6 The 
passage does not expressly describe a system of emanation; 
but I fully admit that it does not seem of a piece with 
the rest of the account. But then, unfortunately for the 


t Le, 8. 2 Προσαρτήματα. 
3 Strom., ii. 20, p. 488. 4 Tévos. Strom., iv. 13, p. 603. 
5 See p. 402 of Dr Salmon’s article.  Stihelin, p. 81. 

21 


322 BASILIDES 


argument, it is a parenthesis which fits rather uneasily into 
its place, and is not in the least required; and, as we have 
seen, it is ascribed, not to Basilides, but to the Basilideans. I 
am inclined to think that Hippolytus has here inserted an 
incongruous feature derived from his knowledge of the later 
and degenerate school. 

In comparing Hippolytus with other writers, Stahelin+ 
quietly classes Irenzeus and Clement together, and finds that 
the deviations come under two heads: first, Hippolytus 
teaches a system of evolution, and the others one of 
emanation; secondly, the former presents a monistic, the 
latter a dualistic scheme. This classification of authorities 
cannot be admitted. We have seen that Hippolytus and 
Clement stand together against Irenzus, and that the latter 
cannot be regarded as an authority for the teaching of the 
founder of the school. Stahelin makes no attempt to meet 
the arguments by which this is established, and does ποῦ 
seem aware of their existence. In estimating the alleged 
deviations, therefore, we may confine our attention to Clement 
and Hippolytus. 

It is perfectly true that Hippolytus not only describes a 
monistic system, but asserts in the strongest way that 
Basilides was a monist, and specially avoided emanation ; 
for what sort of emanation, he makes him ask, or what sort 
of matter, could God require to work up a Cosmos, like a 
spider spinning its threads, or a man working up bronze or 
wood?2 This statement is the more noticeable because it is 
such an express contradiction to the known view of Irenzus, 
and Hippolytus must have been convinced that he had the 


1 See p. 88 sqq. 

2 C. 22, p. 360, 1. 25 sqg. The word for emanation is προβολή. 
Epiphanius says the νοῦς, etc., προβέβληται (1.c., 1), for which Irenzus has 
natum. Pseudo-Tert. has probolas; Theodoret, προβληθῆναι. ' 


DEVIATIONS FROM OTHER ACCOUNTS 523 


authority of Basilides himself for making it. But what 
does Clement say? Unfortunately he is absolutely silent on 
this point. Stahelin cites only two neutral statements as 
evidence that Clement agrees with Irenzus on this subject. 
One is that justice and peace are included in the ogdoad.! 
As Irenzus does not mention justice, peace, or an ogdoad, 
this reference does not go far in proving the agreement of 
the two writers; and the only way in which a doctrine of 
emanation can be extracted from it is by piecing it on to 
Trenzeus’ account of the derivation of Nis, Logos, ete.—a 
proceeding which is quite unwarrantable. By way of a 
second statement it is alleged that Clement makes the Nis 
or διάκονος of the highest God come down, and unite himself 
with the man Jesus from the baptism to the Passion.2 If 
this were correct, it would not establish a doctrine of 
emanation ; but it is not correct, for Clement only says that 
the Basilideans affirmed that the dove was the διάκονος. The 
rest of the statement is made up out of Irenzeus——a most 
misleading way of presenting evidence, for there is nothing 
elsewhere in Clement to justify 1038 Stahelin thinks that the 
authority which Hippolytus follows retained, inconsistently, 
some traces of the original doctrine of emanation. We have 
already discussed the reference to the three hundred and 
sixty-five heavens; and we need only add now that they are 
called κτίσεις, and not emanations. In what way the ascrip- 
tion of beauty to the Supreme points to emanation I confess 
I am unable to comprehend, and therefore cannot estimate 
the force of the mysterious argument which I suppose it 
must contain. 

In coming to the alleged dualism Stahelin has to admit 

1 Strom., iv. 25, p. 637. 2 Hacerpt. ex Theod., xvi. p. 962. 


3 The διάκονος is alluded to in connection with the Baptism in Sérom., 11. 
8, p. 449, but without any explanation of its meaning, 


324 BASILIDES 


that there is nothing about it in Irenzeus'; but he roundly 
asserts that according to Clement the system was dualistic. 
If this were true, our whole argument would have to be 
abandoned, for the coincidences which have been pointed out 
could not be weighed against a difference so fundamental. 
But the evidence in support of this confident statement is 
of the most shadowy description. Clement charges Basilides 
with making the devil divine, because he regarded the 
sufferings of martyrdom as a punishment (though an honour- 
able one) for sin committed in a previous life; and he farther 
promises to discuss the doctrines of metempsychosis and of 
the devil on a proper occasion. Therefore, says Hilgenfeld,* 
Basilides’ doctrine of the devil must have been as peculiar 
as his doctrine of metempsychosis; and wherein can its 
peculiarity have consisted except in its dualism? We might 
readily answer, in anything rather than dualism; for the 
ordinary doctrine of the devil touches dualism so closely that 


it is in some danger of being confounded with it. And — 


certainly the expression “making the devil divine”° points 
rather to the rigid monism of a pantheistic hypothesis. This 
interpretation exactly suits the argument, so far as it is 
unfolded. Clement thought that martyrdoms were due to a 
power hostile to God, and that in enduring them Christians 
were fighting on the side of God against the devil. Basilides 
could not admit the existence of a power hostile to God, and, 
as he believed that God would not inflict suffering except 
as a punishment for sin, he was obliged to suppose that 
martyrdoms were punishments. The peculiarity, therefore, 
of his doctrine of the devil must have been that he regarded 
the devil as the instrument of God, who helped to put his 


1 P. 89. BR, ΟΣ. 3 Strom., iv. 12, p. 601. 
4 Ketzergeschichte, p. 221, quoted by Stahelin, p. go. 


5 Θειάζων τὸν διάβολον. 


DEVIATIONS FROM OTHER ACCOUNTS 32ς 


penal providence into execution. This divine devil, accord- 
ingly, seems to prove that the Basilides of Clement was a 
monist, and not a dualist, and must have been sufficiently 
peculiar to deserve notice on a proper occasion. 

The only other argument is too frail to grasp. There might 
be a primitive confusion, and passions might be regarded as 
appendages, under either form of doctrine; for every system 
must admit the reality of differentiation, the existence of 
multiplicity and incongruity being the given fact which has 
to be explained. Which form of explanation Basilides 
adopted, Clement does not inform us; and I cannot concede 
that in retaining the words, confusion, sorting, restoration, 
Hippolytus is allowing the original dualism to peep through ; 
for no one who was not engaged upon an inquisition would 
feel the impropriety of the language. As to the προσαρτήματα, 
these are not offshoots from a positive realm of evil, but the 
clinging qualities of the animal, the vegetable, and the mineral 
in us; and virtue consists in overcoming this τῆς ἐλάττονος ἐν 
ἡμῖν κτίσεως." Such a view is quite in harmony with a 
monistic system of evolution. 

An argument of a different kind is founded on the 
resemblances, already dealt with, between the Sethians and 
Basilides; for these resemblances, says Stahelin, show that 
the latter must have been originally as dualistic as the 
former.2 This argument rests on the assumption that a 
monist may not on any account use a figure or a phrase 
which has ever been employed by a dualist, and it is difficult 
to see the validity of this canon of criticism. But if the 
article on the Sethians be, as is alleged, a forgery, we arrive 

1 This explanation, which I reached quite independently, was suggested 
by Gieseler (Theol. Stud. wu. Kritik., 1830, p, 379), as I learn from Jacobi, 


“Das urspriingliche Basilidianische System,” in the Zeitschrift fiir Kirchen- 


geschichte, 1877, vol. i. p. 528. 
2 Quoted from Isidore, Strom., ii. 20, p. 488. 3 P. 27 sq., 80, 81. 


326 BASILIDES 


at the still stranger canon that no monist can use a figure 
or a phrase which it is possible for any forger of a dualistic 
system within a century afterwards to adopt. Such argu- 
ments only betray the weakness of the cause which they are 
intended to support. 

The one really serious argument remains. There is extant 
in a Latin translation “The Acts of the Disputation between 
Archelaus and Manes.”! These Acts appear to be as early as 
the fourth century, if not written at the end of the third *; but 
the author is unknown, and it is not certain whether they were 
originally written in Greek or Syriac? We there* learn that 
“there was also a preacher among the Persians, a certain Basi- 
lides, of greater antiquity,not long after the times of our Apostles, 
who being himself also a crafty man, and seeing that at that 
time everything was already preoccupied, wished to maintain 
that dualism which was also in favour with Scythianus.” 
The writer “cites the beginning of the thirteenth book of his 
treatises (tractatuum), in which it was said that ‘the saving 
word’ (the Gospel) by means of the parable of the rich man © 
and the poor man pointed out the source from which nature 
(or a nature) without a root and without a place germinated 
and extended itself over things (rebus supervenientem, unde 
pullulaverit). He breaks off a few words later, and adds that 
after some five hundred lines Basilides invites his reader to 
abandon idle and curious elaborateness (varietate), and to 
investigate rather the studies and opinions of barbarians on 


1 Routh, Reliquie Sacre, vol. v. 

2 Jacobi gives reasons for placing them shortly before or after 325 a.D. 
L.c., p. 496 sq. 

8 Jacobi tries to show that the author wrote in Greek, and probably 
belonged to Egypt. L.c., p. 493 sqqg. Harnack thinks the original was — 
Syriac, appealing to the authority of K. Kessler (“Die Acta Archelai und 
das Diatessaron Tatians,” 1883, in the Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. i. 
p. 137 sq.). 

* Cap. lv. 


ACTS OF ARCHELAUS AND MANES 327 


good and evil. Certain of them, Basilides states, said that 
there are two beginnings of all things, light and darkness.” ! 
The date of this Basilides, the thirteen books, and the 
exposition of a parable seem to point to our Alexandrian 
heresiarch, and this is confirmed by the reference to barbarians, 
for we learn from Agrippa Castor, alleged by Eusebius to be a 
contemporary writer, that Basilides “named as prophets to 
himself Barcabbas and Barcoph, appointing also some other 
non-existent persons, and that he assigned to them barbarous 
appellations to astonish those who stand in awe of such 
things” ;? but I confess I cannot recognise him in a “ preacher 
among the Persians,” and a man who “had nothing of his 
own to assert.” The writer, too, has previously mentioned the 
heretic along with Marcion and Valentinus,? so that we might 
expect some indication that the same person was referred to, 
even though the two passages are addressed to different 
people. Dr Hort thinks “the evidence for the identity of the 
two writers may on the whole be treated as preponderating ” ; 
but certainly the question is by no means free from doubt.* 
If we assume the identity, we have to consider the value to 
be attached to the statements of the writer. We do not know 
who he was. He has made a strange blunder in calling 
Basilides a preacher among the Persians. He asserts that all 
Basilides’ books “ contain things difficult and rugged,” so that 
he may conceivably have misunderstood what was before 
him. As Dr Hort points out, “his language . . . is loose, as 
if he were not sure of his ground; and the quotation which 
he gives by no means bears him out. ... It assuredly re- 

1 Dr Hort, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, i. p. 276 b. 

2 Euseb., H. E., iv. 7. 3 Cap. xxxviii. 

4 Jacobi, in supposing that the writer referred to the well-known 
Basilides, treats the statement that he was a preacher among the Persians 


as entirely unworthy of credit, and thinks that the author deemed an 
ancient heretic unworthy of exact study. L.c., pp. 493, 507. 


328 BASILIDES 


quires considerable straining to draw the brief interpretation 
given of the parable to a Manichean position, and there is 
nothing to show that the author of it himself adopted the 
first set of ‘barbarian’ opinions which he reported. Indeed, 
the description of evil (for evil doubtless is intended) as a 
supervenient nature, without root and without place, reads 
almost as if it were directed against Persian doctrine, and 
may be fairly interpreted by Basilides’ comparison of pain 
and fear to the rust of iron as natural accidents.” I think 
this is just criticism, and that we cannot place much 
confidence in the judgment of our anonymous informant. 
Jacobi believes that this passage was cited to illustrate the 
obscurity, and not the dualism, of Basilides. But, however 
this may be, he is in full agreement with the interpretation 
of the passage given by Dr Hort, and points out that it 
contradicts the doctrine ascribed by implication to Basilides 
in Epiphanius’ reference to a ῥίζα τοῦ κακοῦ, and further that, 
in proper dualism, the evil principle could not be described 
as “poor.”? It appears, therefore, that, if this citation has 
preserved ‘a genuine fragment of Basilides, it confirms, instead 
of contradicting, the results of our investigation. The writer 
introduces the second quotation only that he may confirm by 
“certain testimonies” his assertion that Scythianus was the 
real founder of the dualism preached by Manes, and that this 
Seythianus was a barbarian. It is quite appropriate, there- 
fore, to quote a passage from Basilides in which he says that 
some of the barbarians were dualists; but as our author 
evidently found Basilides rather beyond his comprehension, 
he may have hastily concluded that he wished to maintain 
(voluit affirmare) the opinions which he quoted. As Jacobi 
remarks, he would not have ascribed to the heresiarch a 
mere wish to maintain dualism if he had found explicit 


1 Her., xxiv. 6. 2 Lic, p. 498 sqq. 


STRANGENESS OF THE SYSTEM 329 


passages suited to his purpose.’ On the whole, then, if we 
had no other evidence, we might think it right to accept 
provisionally the testimony of this writer; but when this 
testimony is found to be wanting in clearness and self- 
consistency, while it is opposed to our most trustworthy 
authorities, I think we must not hesitate to reject it. 

The final argument of Stihelin is that some of the articles 
are so strange that they are most easily understood as the 
production of a man who’ was secretly mocking the whole 
Gnostic movement.? Under Basilides he refers to the doctrine 
that “ Not-being God made a not-being world out of not-being 
things,”* and to the notion of “the great ignorance.” No 
doubt the former doctrine sounds rather strange to modern 
ears; but it is the natural outcome of a tendency of thought 
prevalent at Alexandria, and marks the genuine and original 
thinker rather than the mocking forger. The absolute must 
be a simple unity, elevated above all predicates; for pre- 
dicates imply comparison and differentiation. Philo tried to 
express this idea by calling God ὁ ὦν or τὸ ov. But this 
was not sufficiently abstract for later thinkers. Plotinus 
maintained that the unit‘ transcended both reason and 
essence ὃ; the former, because reason involves the distinction 
of thinker and thought; the latter, because being and reason 
are identical. Basilides anticipated this lofty abstraction. 
He did not mean to deny what we should call the reality of 
God, but to indicate that he was such as creation could 
neither denote by speech nor contain in thought,’ that he 

e685 p: 507. ΣΕΥ 106. 

3 Οὐκ dy θεὸς ἐποίησε κόσμον οὐκ ὄντα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. P. 358, 1. 6, 7. 

4 τὸ ἕν. 

5 ἘἘπέκεινα νοῦ καὶ ἐπέκεινα οὐσίασ. As Mansel points out (Gnostic Heresies, 
Ῥ. 146 sq.), the latter statement is derived from Plato, οὐκ οὐσίας ὄντος τοῦ 
ἀγαθοῦ, GAA’ ἔτι ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ὑπερέχοντος (Repub., 


vi. 19, p. 509 b). 
6 See Ueberweg’s account of Plotinus. τ P.'360, © 20. 


330 τος ΒΑΒΙΠΙΠΌΕΞ 


was incomprehensible, that he was above all names,? and 


beyond all thought and characterisation? We must explain 
the “not-being world” in a similar way. It was incapable 
of predicates until the process of differentiation and mul- 
tiplicity began. Similarly, “nothing” means none of the 
things that are named, or are apprehended by sensation or 
by thought.t This is a daring attempt to solve the pro- 
foundest of metaphysical problems, and may or may not be 
satisfactory ; but it does not mark the jesting forger. | 

The doctrine of the great ignorance is one of singular 
originality. The whole process of creation is conceived as 
a struggling upwards of all things. This involves a con- 
tinual groaning and travailing, till the revelation of the sons 
of God takes place. But when, through the emancipation of 
the third sonship, this is accomplished, God will stop the 
ceaseless pain and sighing by compassionately bringing on the 
Cosmos the great ignorance, in order that all things may 
remain according to nature, and nothing desire anything 


contrary to its nature, and that no soul may be tortured 


by desiring impossibilities, as though a fish were to desire 
to feed upon the mountains with sheep. It is a curious 
thought, but one not without beauty and pity; and this 
blessed ignorance is a fitting close to the process of evolu- 
tion, when the restoration of all things will be accomplished, 
and every part of creation have reached its allotted goal. 


; 
; 
᾿ 
Υ 
’ 
§ 
| 


We must add, in conclusion, that the case of Basilides is — 


very different from that of the more obscure heretical sects. 
In their case some forged documents might be passed off upon 
Hippolytus, but Basilides was a well-known writer, and 
there could have been no serious difficulty in obtaining a 


1 ῬΑ Σου δὶ 5. P.. 362, 19 
> P. 364,1. 84. The last two statements refer immediately to his “ place.” 
4 P. 358, 1. 91-93. 5 0.29. 


A WELL-KNOWN AUTHOR 331 


copy of his works through the regular channels. He was 
the author of twenty-four books on “the Gospel,” as we 
are informed by Eusebius on the authority of Agrippa 
Castor?; and Clement, who apparently refers to this 
voluminous work under the title of Exegetica, evidently 
considered its thoughts sufficiently weighty to deserve con- 
sideration. If Hippolytus seriously wished to know the 
principal contents of so important a composition, it is very 
unlikely that he would have placed himself in untrustworthy 
hands. This improbability is greatly increased by the fact 
that the account which he gives is not the result of first 
impressions, but is a departure as deliberate as it is complete, 
not only from the representations of his master Irenzus, but 
from those which he himself gave at an earlier period in his 
“Compendium,”—if at least it is rightly supposed that that 
work is substantially preserved in the summary of Pseudo- 
Tertullian. What reasonable explanation can be given of so 
remarkable a change except that Hippolytus, having made 
himself acquainted with the writings of Basilides himself, dis- 
covered that the accounts of the system which were current 
in the west when he was a youth were totally incorrect ?4 

I am unable, then, to attach any serious force to the 
arguments by which the hypothesis of forgery is supported ; 
and on a survey of the whole case, I think the evidence 
renders it highly probable that the writer quoted by 
Hippolytus is Basilides himself. If this conclusion be 
correct, Basilides used the Fourth Gospel as one of a set 
of writings known as “the Gospels.” 


1 Not “his” Gospel, as Stahelin says, putting “his” in inverted commas, 
p- 89. 

2 H. E., iv. 7. 3 Strom., iv. 12, p. 599. 

4 We may notice especially the use of probole by Pseudo-Tertullian, and 
the emphatic statement of Hippolytus that Basilides entirely rejected the 
ideas connected with this word. 


CHAPTER XI 
NAASSENI, PERATH, ALOGI, AND DOCETZ. 


HIPPOLYTUS gives an account of yet earlier heretics than those — 
whose views we have been considering. In describing the | 
opinions of the Naasseni and Peratz,’ he follows his usual 
plan of quoting heretical writers; but as he does not, prior to 
his citations, name the founders of the schools, and gives us 
no sort of clue to the authorship or dates of the works which 
he quotes, we cannot feel any confidence that the quotations 
carry us far back into the second century. In the course, 
indeed, of his exposition of the Peratic doctrine he refers to 
two founders (ἀρχηγοί) of the heresy under the names of 
Euphrates the Peratic (probably one from beyond the river, 
from the remote east) and Celbes the Carystian (from Carystus, 
a town in the south of Eubcea).? These men are mentioned 
also in an earlier part of the work,’ and again in the summary 
in the last book.t Theodoret, who closely follows the 
summary of Hippolytus, naturally introduces these heretics; 
and Origen tells us that the Ophites “boasted that a certain 

1 y. 6-18. The former name is equivalent to Ophites, vaas being the 
Hebrew of 6 ὄφις (ὃ 6, p. 132). The Perate called themselves so because ἢ 
they alone were able, through their superior knowledge, διελθεῖν καὶ περᾶσαι | 
τὴν φθοράν, which was to come on everything γεννητόν (δ 16, p. a 

2: £5, Pui 182. 

3 iv. 2, where the latter is called Acembes. 


+ x. 10, where the second name stands first, in the form of Ademes. 
5 Heret. Fab. Compend., i. 17. 


332 


EARLIEST GNOSTICS 333 


Euphrates was the introducer of their impious doctrines.” ὦ 
These may be the names of real men; but we know nothing 
of their lives or dates. We are not even informed whether 
they were authors; and it might be that, though they were 
the founders of the sect, their doctrines were committed to 
writing only by their successors. Hippolytus, indeed, in the 
section following that in which he names the heresiarchs 
refers with unusual explicitness to μίαν τινὰ τῶν Tap’ αὐτοῖς 
δοξαζομένων βίβλων, from which he gives an extraordinary 
quotation, about two pages long; but he supplies no hint of 
the authorship, and it may have been an anonymous publi- 
cation. He adds that the rest of their books contain the same 
kind of thing; and I can see no ground even for a plausible 
conjecture in each instance from what author the extracts are 
derived. In this case, then, there is, so far as I am aware, no 
evidence to discuss. Still it is important to observe that the 
Fourth Gospel is frequently referred to; for we thus learn 
that the representatives of the earliest Gnosticism agreed with 
the Catholics in acknowledging its authority.2. There is no 
allusion to the authorship of the book, but it is quoted as 
though it were well-known and recognised Scripture. The 
first quotation is introduced by τὸ γεγραμμένον, others by τὸ 
εἰρημένον, εἴρηκεν ὁ σωτήρ, OY Some similar expression. 

Now, quite apart from any particular evidence of the early 
existence of the Gospel which we have found among the 
Gnostics, I cannot but agree with those who regard its wide 
acceptance by the heretics as a most significant fact—a fact 
which becomes more impressive when we remember that the 
one great sect which disowned its authority would find in its 

1 Cont. Cels., vi. 28, p. 351. See the Dict. of Christ. Biog. for conjectures 
about Euphrates. 

2 It is quoted or referred to p. 148, 1. 24; 150, 1. 55; 152, 1. 74, 91, 92; 


154, 1. 8-9; 156,1.48; 158,1. 83-84; 166,]. 13 ; 172, 1. 5, 12,13; 178,12; 
192, 1, 525) 304, | 58.3 196, 1. 22, 23 ;, 198, L. 32. 


334 ALOGI 


alleged Johannine authorship a sufficient reason for its — 
rejection. That not only the Catholic Church scattered — 
throughout so many lands, but such diverse schools of © 


heretics in east and west, who were so glad to pierce every © 
weak place in the Catholic armour, should agree to accept as — 


apostolic a work which was first published in the very heat of 


their controversies, is not easily believed. Men of even the — 
smallest understanding would have wanted to know why the > 
book had been concealed so long, and some plausible story - 
would have been required to account for so strange a fact. 
But so far as we know, not a single controversialist took 
advantage of his opportunities. By a tacit conspiracy 
between inveterate foes a most damaging circumstance was — 
buried in eternal oblivion ; and the opposing armies in Europe, ' 
Asia, and Africa agreed to respect as ancient what they knew — 


to be modern. The general probabilities of the case, then, 
support the conclusion which we have reached by an ex- 
amination of details, that the Gospel is older than the great 
Gnostic controversies, and was securely established in the 
respect of Christians before the serious divisions in the Church 
began. 

Thus far we have had a uniform testimony; but happily 
for those who are unable to accept the apostolic authorship of 
the Gospel, the harmony is broken by one discordant note, 
and the Alogi are fondled with a tenderness suitable to their 
small dimensions. Schiirer, who is a careful inquirer, sets 
great store upon their opinion, and founds on it a very serious 


conclusion. He says we know, “through Ireneus and — 


Epiphanius, that there was a party in the Church in the © 


second century which did not acknowledge the Gospel of 
John as apostolic or canonical. . . . These opponents of the 


Gospel of John were not heretics, but a party in the Church. — 


How could such a party venture to reject the Gospel if its 


NOT A PARTY IN THE CHURCH 3 3 5 


apostolic origin was known and acknowledged? They had 
dogmatic grounds, to be sure, for the rejection. But after the 
apostolic origin of the New Testament Scriptures was once 
acknowledged by the Church, parties set on one side the 
strongest dogmatic points which were not convenient to them 
in quite another way—not by rejection, but by interpretation 
of Scripture. If the Alogoi had recourse simply to rejecting 
the Gospel, its apostolic origin cannot at that time have been 
generally acknowledged.”! It will be observed that the force 
of this argument depends on the assertion that the Alogi were 
not heretics, but a party in the Church; but Schiirer has not 
derived this information from either Irenzus or Epiphanius. 
The former, who gives them no name, refers to them in a part 
of his work in which he describes the treatment of the 
Gospels by various schools of heretics, and he places them 
between Marcion and the Valentinians.2 Moreover, he 
attributes their rejection of the Gospel to their heretical view 
of the gift of the Spirit, and declares that by thus sinning 
against the Spirit they fall into the unpardonable sin. He 
does not tell us whether they denied either the Johannine 
authorship or the early date of the Gospel, but merely says 
that they “did not admit” it. This statement is true also in 
regard to Marcion and the Ebionites; so that, if we confine 
ourselves to the authority of Irenzeus, we can only say that 
in addition to these heretics there were others who, for 
dogmatic reasons, did not receive the Gospel, and if we follow 
the prevalent conjecture, that they were influenced by reaction 
against Montanist excesses). Mr C. H. Turner, following 
older authorities, believes, on the contrary, that they were an 
offshoot of the Montanists, who rejected the Fourth Gospel 


1 Article on “The Fourth Gospel,” in the Contemporary Review, Sept. 


1801, p. 415 86. 
βται: ἐσ, 9, 


336 ALOGI 


because the Paraclete was promised to the Apostles. This view ; 
has the advantage of enabling us to accept the existing 
reading of Irenzus, “pseudoprophetz quidem esse volunt.”* | 
In either case this goes a very little way towards proving that 
the Gospel was not generally acknowledged by the Church. 

We must turn, then, to Epiphanius, who gives a long and — 
rambling account of some very indefinite persons, whom, — 
perhaps borrowing from Hippolytus,? he nicknames Alogi? | 
and who are frequently identified with the obscure heretics — 
referred to by Irenzus, though they have nothing in common — 
except their rejection of the Gospel. But here, again, we are Ἷ 
not informed that these men were a party in the Church. On 
the contrary, they are placed in the roll of heretics; they are j 
described as “entirely strangers to the preaching of the | 
truth” ;5 and their doctrine is stigmatised as “heresy.”° The q 
only discoverable ground for Schiirer’s assertion is that q 


Epiphanius once remarks, “for they themselves appear to j 
believe as we do.”” But the very form of this sentence shows — 
that he did not regard them as a party in the Church; for 
clearly “we” are the Catholics, from whom “they” are : 
distinguished. It is apparent also from the context that only — 


1 See the careful note in the Jowrnal of Theological Studies, 111. Ὁ. 116. 
The point is not important for our present inquiry. 

2 This was suggested by Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part L., vol. 11. 
Ρ. 394. 

ϑ Her., li. ἣ 

4 Bousset, indeed, says that Epiphanius treats the Alogi as opponents of 3 
the Spirit and deniers of the gifts of the Spirit in the Church (Meyer's ~ 
Kom. Offenbar., p. 17). There is no reference in support of this statement, — 
and I can find nothing to justify it. They are, it is true, charged with 
“not having received the Holy Spirit” (§ 35); but this refers only to — 
their rejection of parts of the Scriptures: “they waged war against the 
words spoken by the Spirit.” There is no suggestion that they rejected | 
the Gospel because it seemed to favour Montanist claims. : 

° 33. ὁ §§ 1, 3» 33) 35: 


7 Δοκοῦσι yap αὐτοὶ τὰ ἶσα ἡμῖν πιστεύειν, ὃ 4. 


EPIPHANIUS’ ACCOUNT 337 


one doctrine is in question: these heretics agreed with the 
Church about the person of Christ, in opposition to Cerinthus. 
We must add that Philaster, evidently describing the same 
people, calls them “heretics,” and says that they “remain in 
heresy.”! The foundation, then, of Schiirer’s argument turns 
out to be little better than a quicksand. 

Nevertheless, these Alogi are very interesting, and it is a 
pity Epiphanius has not spared some of his abuse in 
order to give us more exact information. A brief abstract 
of his account may enable the reader to form a just estimate 
of their importance. In the opening section he says that this 
heresy arose after the Cataphrygians, Quartodecimans, and 
others. He proposes to call them Alogi, as rejecting the 
books of John, and therefore the Logos which was preached 
by John. He says, “they receive neither the Gospel of 
John nor his Apocalypse. And if, indeed, they received the 
Gospel, but rejected the Apocalypse, we should say, do they 
then do this in accordance with exact investigation, not re- 
ceiving an apocryphal book on account of the things said 
deeply and darkly in the Apocalypse?” But since they “do 
not receive the books preached by the holy John,” they 
answer to his description of the antichrist in the Catholic 
Epistles? They are, however, “ashamed to contradict the 
holy John, because they know that he also was in the 
number of the Apostles, and beloved by the Lord.” They 
therefore endeavour to overthrow his writings in a different 
way; “for they say that they are not [works] of John, but 
of Cerinthus; and they affirm that they are not worthy [to 
be] in the Church.”*? This opinion proves that they under- 
stand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm. “For 


1 Her., quoted by Charteris, Canonicity, p. 438. aS 3 
8. § 3. It is worth noticing that they thus ascribe the Gospel and the 


Apocalypse to the same author. 
22 


338 ALOGI 


how shall the things spoken against Cerinthus be [works] of 
Cerinthus?” For Cerinthus thought that Christ was οὗ 
recent date and a mere man, but John preached the Logos © 
as eternal, and come from heaven, and made flesh. This 
proves their folly; “for they themselves seem to believe as 
we do,” though they do not hold the certainty of the 
preaching administered to us through the holy John. For 
they affirm “that his books do not agree with the rest of 
the apostles; and they seem further to attack the holy and 
inspired teaching. And what, he says, did he say? That in 
the beginning was the Word,” etc. Next follows a reference 
to the earlier part of the Fourth Gospel, down to the marriage — 
in Cana. “And the other evangelists affirm that he spent forty 
days in the desert, being tempted by the devil, and then 
having returned and received the disciples.” Epiphanius — 
explains that John discloses some things omitted by the 
others, and that the others do not begin from the very series © 
of events.!. Then follow remarks upon the other evangelists, — 
and their mode of beginning. The objection of the Alogi © 
proceeds thus :—“ But the Gospel in the name of John, they 
affirm, speaks falsely ; for after saying that the Word became — 
flesh, and tabernacled among us, and a few other things, 
immediately it says that a marriage took place in Cana of 
Galilee.”? Epiphanius replies that according to John Jesus — 
returned again to the Baptist after the temptation, but that | 
the evangelist passed by the things related by Matthew. — 
“But they say that the Gospel according to John, since it 
did not state the same things, is ‘uncanonical, and that they 
themselves do not receive it.” Further on are the words:— 
“But again the same persons accuse the holy evangelist, or 
rather the same Gospel; because, he says, John spoke about 
two passovers [saying] that the Saviour had celebrated them, 

i> a. 2 § 18. 


THEIR ARGUMENTS 339 


_ but the other evangelists about one passover.”! Epiphanius 
is ready with his reply, and declares that there were three 
passovers. 

We must notice one of the arguments of the Alogi against 
the Apocalypse, because it seems to fix the date of the persons 
whom Epiphanius is refuting. Some of these Alogi raised the 
objection that there was a letter to the angel of the church 
at Thyatira, whereas there was no church of Christians in 
that place. Epiphanius replies, “if they say, there is not 
now a church at Thyatira they show that John prophesied.” 
For as they themselves and the Cataphrygians dwelt there, 
and had brought over the whole city to their heresy, there 
was no Church; “but now,” he continues, “on account of the 
Lord, in the present time, after a period of one hundred and 
twelve years, the Church exists and increases, and there are 
some others there. But then the whole Church was emptied 
into that according to the Phrygians.” This fusing of the 
Church in the heresy of the Cataphrygians, which took 
place ninety-three years after the ascension, was foretold 
in the words, “but I have against thee, that thou 
sufferest the woman Jezebel to deceive my servants, 
saying that she herself is a prophetess, teaching to eat 
things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.” 5 
Apparently there was no evidence that the Alogi rejected 
the Epistles of John; for Epiphanius mentions their 
doing so only as an inference,—“but perhaps also the 
Epistles, for these also agree with the Gospel and the 
Apocalypse.” ὃ 

From the foregoing summary we learn that the Alogi lived 
at Thyatira; and this fact is in agreement with the conjecture 
that the heretics mentioned by Irenzus were moved by 
opposition to Montanism. It does not, however, favour the 

1 δ 23. ἘΝ. 93. ὁ 8 34. 


340 ALOGI 


suggestion that Epiphanius has in mind the Roman Presbyter 
Gaius, although he may avail himself of the reply of 
Hippolytus to that writer. In the same passage he places 
them one hundred and twelve years before the time when he 
was writing, and we thus arrive at the year 263. It may be 
that we can place no reliance upon this date”; but the 
acceptance of it suggests some interesting points. Dionysius 
of Alexandria states that some before his time entirely 
rejected the Apocalypse, and ascribed it to Cerinthus.? Now, 
Epiphanius tells us that the Alogi said that the Gospel and 
Apocalypse were works, not of John, but of Cerinthus. In 
respect to the Apocalypse this suggestion had at least a show 
of reason, being supported by the millennarian doctrine of 
that work; but if it was really extended to the Gospel, it 
must have been by men who were ignorant of the teaching 
of Cerinthus, and took it for granted that if both books were 
forgeries they both proceeded from the same pen. I cannot 
help suspecting, however, that Epiphanius has himself ex- 
tended to the Gospel what was said only of the Apocalypse. 
Ireneus says nothing of the rejection of the Apocalypse, 
though he goes out of his way to mention Paul; and 
accordingly, if the same men really rejected both books, this 
was probably a later development. Again, Irenzus refers 
only to a dogmatic objection, whereas Epiphanius refers only 


1 See a paper by Dr J. Rendel Harris, which was read before the Society 
of Historical Theology in Oxford, and afterwards printed in Hermas in 
Arcadia and other Essays, 1896. 

2 There are some signs of confusion, either in the mind of Epiphanius 
himself, or on the part of his transcribers. It is clear by the position 
which he assigns to the Alogi that he considers them as belonging to the 
second century ; and this view is confirmed by the following remark upon 
Theodotus at the opening of Ἰῖν.,---ἀπόσπασμα ὑπάρχων ἐκ τῆς προειρημένης 
ἀλόγου αἱρέσεως, κιτιλ. For the possible connection of this puzzling date 
with Hippolytus, see Bousset in Meyer’s Kom. » CT Ῥ. 17, Anm. I. 

3 Eusebius, H. H., vii. 25. 


‘ 


ee eee 


᾿ 
i 
‘ 
I 
| 
[ 


RESULTS 341 


to critical objections. Can it be that Epiphanius really quotes 


from a work published in 263, and that the author imitated 
Dionysius in his critical treatment of the Apocalypse, by 
finding critical reasons for an opinion which was previously 
entertained upon dogmatic grounds? We cannot venture to 
answer these questions with any confidence. Three facts, 
however, may be safely asserted. First, there were men 
(I judge that they. were very few, from the scanty notices 
that have reached us”) who challenged the Gospel both for 
doctrinal and critical reasons, and hence it appears that the 
Church was not allowed to accept the book in absolute blind- 
ness. Secondly, Irenzeus, who was in living contact with 
early tradition, and might, if he had thought proper, have 
told us a great deal that he has left unsaid, is content to 
notice the fact of rejection, and does not think it worth 
discussing; whereas, Epiphanius thinks that the critical 
arguments require an elaborate reply. Thirdly, there is not 
a trace of any argument based on historical grounds, nor is 
the traditional date of the Gospel in any way impugned. 
Surely, if the Gospel had been before the public for only a 
few years, the assailants would have taken advantage of this 
most damaging fact, and we should have had some sort of 
reply. 

In order to assist our judgment of the general value of this 
testimony, it should be observed that a very large part of the 
section is only indirectly connected with the Alogi. It is, in 
fact, to a great extent a treatise on the harmony of the 
Gospels, which even has reference to the objections of “certain 
of the Greek philosophers,” Porphyry and Celsus being men- 

1 Died 264 A.D. 

2 Here the silence of Eusebius is certainly significant. He places the 
Gospel without hesitation ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις, describes it as ταῖς ὑπὸ τὸν 


οὐρανὸν διεγνωσμένον ἐκκλησίαις, and couples it with the First Epistle as 
παρά τε τοῖς viv καὶ τοῖς ἔτ᾽ ἀρχαίοις ἀναμφίλεκτος. H. H., 111. 24, 25. 


342 ALOGI 


tioned by name.’ It is totally devoid of historical details, if 
we except the vague and confused reference to Thyatira and 
the date. In the passages where the arguments of others seem 
to be really adduced, there is no reference to the authorship of 
the Gospel. In the Commentary of Bar-Salibi on the Gospel 
of John we are told that a certain heretic “blames John, 
because he was not in agreement with his companions,” and 
that Hippolytus replies? This mode of statement seems to 
show that the heretic in question did not deny the Johannine 
authorship of the Gospel, though he questioned its accuracy. 
Such a view was as likely as an attack on its genuineness to 
call forth a defence from Hippolytus. From these facts one 
is almost inclined to suspect, in the absence of any better 
testimony, that this heresy first assumed distinct shape in 
Epiphanius’ own mind, and that his ideas respecting it may 
have been mainly founded on the testimony of Irenzeus that 
some heretics rejected the Fourth Gospel, and of Dionysius of 


Alexandria that some persons, apparently orthodox, ascribed the - 


Apocalypse to Cerinthus, and on the knowledge acquired in his 
own general reading that various writers, heathen philosophers, 
the Presbyter Gaius, and perhaps others, objected to the credi- 
bility of the Gospels on the ground of their inconsistent state- 
ments. That any sect was so completely composed of ἄλογοι, 
men without reason,as to ascribe the Fourth Gospel to Cerinthus, 
is almost as incredible as the fact which he attests on his personal 
knowledge, that the water in the fountain at Cibyre in Caria 
was in the habit of turning into wine at the hour when the 


‘miracle was wrought at Cana, εἰς μαρτύριον τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν. 


1 8. 8. There seems to be no reason for supposing that these philosophers 
questioned the authorship of the Gospel. See Liicke, i. pp. 69 sg. and 79. 


They would naturally dwell on its inconsistency with the Synoptics. 


Amelius, a contemporary of Porphyry, describes the author as βάρβαρον, 
but does not name him (Euseb., Prep. Εναη,, xi. 18). 
2 See Dr J. R. Harris, lic. 3 § 30. 


DOCETA 343 


Iam unable, therefore, to attach much importance to these 
obscure heretics; but so far as our information can be relied 
upon, it renders more impressive the universal consensus as to 
the early date of the Gospel, and the all but universal con- 
sensus as to its authorship. 

One other heresy calls for a moment’s attention. So much 
importance has been attached to the Docetic Acts of John in 
recent discussions that it is necessary to notice them, though, 
as I do not think they contain a solution of our problem, our 
notice must be brief. In 1896 Corssen published a very able 
article on “ Monarchianische Prologe zu den vier Evangelien,” 
in the Texte wnd Untersuchungen, volume xv. In the course 
of this he speaks of the Acts of John, ascribed to Leucius 
Charinus. From the fragments known at that time it was 
apparent that this was a Docetic work. Corssen points out 
that our Gospel puts into the mouth of the Apostle John a 
sharp protest against the doctrine delivered by the same 
Apostle in the Acts. While the Gospel thus deliberately 
contradicts the teaching of the Acts, the Acts on their side 
betray no acquaintance with an exposition contrary to their 
own. Hence it appears certain that the author of the Gospel 
was acquainted, if not with the work of Leucius himself, at 
least with the traditions which Leucius had not indeed 
created, but only thrown into literary form. This being the 
relation between the Evangelist John and the John of the 
Acts, we can understand why the author of the Fourth 
Gospel came to ascribe his book to the Apostle. The next 
year Dr M. R. James was able to publish from a Vienna 
manuscript an important portion of the Acts of John, 
including the Docetic fragments already known In an 
appended essay Dr James argues with great force against 
Corssen’s view, and maintains that Leucius was acquainted 


LPs 151: 2 Texts and Studies, 1897. 


344 DOCETA 


with the Johannine writings, and evaded their authority 
by the supposition that “St John wrote for the multitude 
certain comparatively plain and easy episodes in the life of 
the Lord: but that to the inner circle of the faithful his 
teaching was widely different.”! To this view Hilgenfeld 
replied in an elaborate article on “ Der gnostische und der 
kanonische Johannes δον das Leben Jesu.”? He endeavours 
to show that the apparent references to the Gospel are either 
delusive or interpolated, and points out that the accounts of 
the calling of the Apostles, and of the closing scenes of Christ's 
life, are quite unlike those of the Evangelist. On whichever 
side we may think the probability lies, the question is one 


which admits of no absolute decision. We learn from Hippo- — 


lytus* that at least one Docetist appealed to the authority of 
the Fourth Gospel; but the writer of the apocryphal Acts, if 
he wished to contradict the clear teaching of the Gospel, would 
naturally show scant respect for its narrative, and yet might 
not wish formally to enter into a polemic against it. Accord- 


ingly, while the evidence that he knew the Gospel may be : 


regarded as uncertain, the evidence of his ignorance of it is 


equally inconclusive.* On the other hand, while the Evangelist 


1 P. 149. The text in its completest form appeared in 1898, under the 
editorship of Max. Bonnet, in Acta Apost. Apoc., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, 

2 Zertschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1900. 

3 Ref. omn. Her., viii. 10. 

4 I do not remember noticing in the discussion what seems an obvious 
reference to the composition of the Gospel in the part published by 
Tischendorf in 1851. After speaking of the Apocalypse, and John’s 
return to Ephesus, the writer describes him as ἀπομνημονεύων ὅσα ὃ κύριος 
αὐτοῖς ἔλεγεν (Tisch., p. 272; Bonnet, p. 160). It is possible that this is not 
part of the original text, for Bonnet gives reasons for thinking that the 
whole narrative of the Roman journey has been retouched by a later hand 
(p. xxviii). Liechtenhan assumes, as though it were beyond question, 
that the writer of the Acts was acquainted with the Gospel (see his article, 
“Die pseudepigraphe Litteratur der Gnostiker,” in the Zeit. f. newt. Wiss., 
1902, pp. 229 sq.). And Carl Schmidt, the most recent investigator, thinks 
that the dominant critical opinion has established the thesis that the 


Ἃ 
he 
δ," 
a 
' 
ἢ ᾿ 
"4 
ἣ 
i 
Ἶ 
a 
7 
a 
{ 
¥ 
a 


-_ 


ee τυ αμοου 


συ" τ εν εν τ σῶν ΚΞ αν 


ACTS OF JOHN 345 


confessedly rebuked Docetic errors, I do not know that there 
is a particle of evidence that he was acquainted with the work 
of Leucius. That work contains some of the essential ideas 
of Valentinianism, and must be put as late as the rise of the 
great Gnostic systems, when we have seen reason to believe 
that the Gospel was already in existence. That Docetism in 
some form was an early and widespread error there can be 
no doubt; but even Ignatius attacks it much more explicitly 
and emphatically than 1 John! 1 John, warning the readers 
that the spirit of antichrist is already in the world? seems to 
indicate an incipient stage of error, whereas in Leucius it is 
developed in all its monstrous absurdity, and introduced into 
a fictitious narrative which can hardly have been invented till 
long after the Apostle’s death. I do not think, therefore, that 
the Acts of John throw any real light upon our problem. 
These relics of an obscure past naturally awaken interest; 
but the chief feeling which they kindle in my own mind is 
one of gratitude to the authorities of the early Church for 
having saved Christianity from rotting away in such a heap 
of abject rubbish. 


author of the Acts knew the Gospel and the other Johannine writings, and 
made abundant use of them (“Die alten Petrusakten im Zusammenhang 
der apokryphen Apostellitteratur,” in Texte und Unters. N. F., ix. 1, 
1903, p. 26). 

1 See Ad. Trall., especially ix. and x., and Ad. Smyrn., 1.--ν. 

et oie 


CHAPTER XII 
RESULTS OF THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 


WE have now reached the end of our inquiry into the external 
evidence. It is difficult to sum up in a few telling and 
decisive lines the results of a prolonged investigation, which 
has involved, at almost every step, the consideration of a 
number of details, and the balancing of delicate probabilities. 
These things do not strike the imagination, or furnish suit- 
able materials for a brilliant picture, which, by possessing 
clearness of outline and the symmetry of an artistic com- 


position, may captivate the reason. The impressions which 


they have made have not been driven in with the triumphant 


force of an advocate’s plea; and it is easy, if we are so 


inclined, to allow these impressions to fade away one by one, 
and tell ourselves that the external evidence after all amounts 
to very little. Thus Schiirer says that “the only external 
evidence of any importance is that of Irenzus,”! and tries 
to show that that practically amounts to nothing. Now I 
think we deceive ourselves as to the force of evidence by 
forgetting its cumulative character. Some critics dismiss 
this, that, and the other piece of evidence as not even worth 
examining, because it is confessedly not conclusive. But 
supposing we have several independent arguments in support 
of a certain conclusion, and that each of these arguments 


1 Contemporary Review, September 1891, p. 413. 
46 . 


a «ὦ... Δ 


RESULTS OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 347 


taken by itself is very doubtful, yet their combined force 
might amount to a high degree of probability. To make 
this plain, let us reduce it to numbers. Let us call certainty 
one, and let us have five arguments in support of a certain 
conclusion, of such a kind that each establishes a probability 
amounting to only one half. Then, if we take only one 
argument, while the positive evidence points to the conclusion, 
the chances of some unknown error will amount to one half, 
and we must say that it is a toss up whether the thing is so 
or not. But the chances of error in all five would be, not i, 
but =4,; in other words, five independent pieces of evidence, 
each of which alone would leave us in a state of complete 
indecision, would establish a probability which, in all practical 
affairs, would at once control our judgment. Now, in the 
case of the Gospel, I do not think that the items of evidence 
are in this state of equilibrium. We cannot of course reduce 
such things to exact numerical values; but, so far as I am 
able to judge, the evidence has usually preponderated over 
the chances of error, and in some cases decidedly so, and thus 
the combined force of the several arguments establishes a 
very high degree of probability. We must remember, too, 
that within the domain of external evidence this probability 
is opposed, not by a counter probability, but by mere chances 
of error. In regard to the early use of the Gospel there is 
no opposing testimony; and the attack is engaged, not in 
confronting the witnesses with others who give a different 
report and are supposed to be more trustworthy, but in 
showing that the witnesses are good for nothing. The only 
semblance of adverse evidence is of a negative kind, and 
rests on the absence of allusions to the Gospel in some of 
the scanty literature which has reached us from a very early 
time. I believe, therefore, that the concurrent evidence 
which we have reviewed, even if in its separate details it may 


348 RESULTS OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 


be thought inconclusive, yet in combination presents a 
probability of such a cogent character that it can be set 
aside only by an arbitrary exercise of judgment, a judgment 
influenced by considerations lying outside the proper field 
of inquiry. 

We must, however, distinguish two points in the con- 
clusion which we have reached, for they possess different 
degrees of probability. First, the attestation is perfectly 


unanimous in favour of the early date of the Gospel, for in _ 


this even the dubious Alogi are supporters of the Catholic 
view. Moreover the date can be much more strongly 
guaranteed than the authorship of a book by a testimony 
given eighty or ninety years after the alleged time of com- 
position. No one can bear direct testimony to the authorship 
of a book except one who has seen it written; but every one 
can tell whether he read a book when he was young or not, 
and can often say whether it came into his hands as a work 
which had been long in use. Accordingly, when several men 
agree in treating a book as written long before they were 
born, it is exceedingly unlikely that they are mistaken. In 
such things there is a widespread and continuous tradition, 
which experience teaches us to trust. Critics speak of 
Trenzus as though he had fallen out of the moon, paid two 


or three visits to Polycarp’s lecture-room, and never known 


any one else. In fact, he must have known all sorts of men, 
of all ages, both in the east and the west, and among others 
his venerable predecessor Pothinus, who was upwards of 
ninety at the time of his death He must have had numerous 


links with the early part of the century, and he must have > 


known perfectly well whether the Gospel was older than 
himself or not. 1 think, therefore, that the universal testi- 
mony, combined with the direct indications which we have 


1 Letter from Lyons and Vienne, Eusebius, H. £., v. 1. 


ag ae ee en 


RESULTS OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 5349 


found of the early use of the Gospel, ought to satisfy us upon 
this point, unless very convincing evidence can be produced 
on the other side. | 

But the second point, that the Apostle John was the author, 
can hardly claim the same degree of confidence. The 
testimony is not quite so unanimous, though I confess I 
cannot myself take the Alogi much more seriously than the 
attempt in our own time to prove that Bacon was the author 
of Shakespeare’s plays. But though the attestation is thus 
_ nearly the same as in the previous case, the thing attested is 
in a very different position. Though our witnesses, with the 
exception of the Alogi, agree in representing John as the 
author, none could assert this on his personal knowledge. All 
we can justly say is that the work was almost universally 
regarded as John’s, and that this was the traditional belief 
of our first informants. As this tradition was so widely 
spread, and as there is no other tradition, I think we are 
further justified in concluding that the Gospel must have 
been received as John’s from the time of its publication. 
But if it was issued soon after the Apostle’s death by 
some writer who chose to keep himself unknown, and on 
the ground either of its own title or of internal evidence, was 
pronounced to be John’s, and generally accepted as such, the 
phenomena of the existing attestation would be sufficiently 
explained; in other words, we have no testimony which 
affords us any security against an error of this kind. 
We can only ask whether such an error is probable 
or not. 

If John continued till the end of his life to labour in 
Palestine, it is difficult to understand how a book published 
far away from the circle of his immediate disciples came to 
be ascribed to him. An English book published in London 
would not be easily attributed to a German who had lived 


350 RESULTS OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 


and died in Hanover; and a Greek book published in Ephesus 
or Alexandria would not be ascribed to an Aramaic speaking 
Jew who had lived and died in Palestine. But supposing so 
singular a blunder had been made, the Apostle’s disciples 
would have protested, for they at least would have known 
that this foreign composition was not the work of their 
master; and accordingly, if the Johannine authorship 


obtained credence at all, it would at least have been a matter . 


of dispute from the first. But if the Apostle really resided in 
the country where the Gospel was published, the case is not 
much better. It is asserted that the style and doctrine of the 
work are quite irreconcilable with the views and education 
of the Apostle John, Schiirer apparently regarding this as the 
only solid argument which is left against the Johannine 
authorship. If this be true, it must have been far more 
obviously so at the time of publication than it is now; and 
the disciples, including Polycarp, would have indignantly 
protested against this attempt to misrepresent their teacher. 
But if, on the contrary, the Gospel was such a one as the 
Apostle might have been expected to write, and simply put on 
paper the old familiar lines of his teaching, then it might have 


2) 


been accepted as “the Gospel according to John,” even if not 
actually written by him. Such an hypothesis reduces the 
question of immediate authorship to one of subordinate 
importance ; but even in this case the false ascription does not 
seem very likely. The writer would have been known, and 
got credit for his good intentions, while any deficiency could 
have been ascribed to him instead of the Apostle; just as our 
Second Gospel has been assigned to Mark, and not to Peter, 
the substance of whose teaching it was supposed to have 
preserved. Or if the author succeeded in hiding his identity, 
still the numerous friends of John must have known pretty 
well whether he had written a Gospel or not, and the work 


RESULTS OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 351 


would have come down to us with some marks of doubt 
attaching to its origin. 

On the whole, then, I cannot but think that the external 
evidence of Johannine authorship possesses great weight, and, 
if it stood alone, would entitle the traditional view to our 
acceptance. We must now direct our attention to the internal 
evidence, and see whether it strengthens or invalidates the 
conclusion we have reached. 


SECTION 1] 


INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE 
TRADITIONAL VIEW 


CHAPTER I 
THE AUTHOR AN ARAMAIC-SPEAKING JEW 


THE internal evidence of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel 
has been examined with such care and completeness, especially 
by English writers, that I cannot hope to contribute any 
fresh material to the subject ; nevertheless, it is necessary for 
me to give a rapid survey and judgment of the several lines 
of argument.! Our object is to ascertain how far the 
indications in the book itself support or are consistent with 


= eS 


the traditional account of its origin. Do these make it ‘4 
eredible or incredible that it was written late in the first 


century, by a Palestinian Jew, an immediate | disciple of 
Christ’s, after a residence of several years in an important 


Greek city? In the present section we will notice the 


evidence which seems to favour the traditional view, re- 


1 For further details I may refer to the late Bishop Westcott’s 
Introduction, Professor Sanday’s Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and three 
articles by the late Bishop Lightfoot in the EHzpositor, Fourth Series, 
vol. i., 1890. 

352 


ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE FESTIVALS 5353 


serving objections for connected discussion under a separate 
head. 

First, then, there are many indications that the writer was 
a Jew. He was acquainted with Jewish festivals; and not 
only with the Passover, which is mentioned several times, and 
with the feast of tabernacles,! but with the less known feast 
of lights, described as τὰ éyxaiva,? which was instituted by 
Judas Maccabeus to commemorate the purification of the 
temple from the pollutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. The 
last mentioned was celebrated in December; and the writer 
casually mentions that it was winter at the time. He was also 
aware that the last was “the great day” of the feast of 
tabernacles, and in the words which he ascribes to Christ on 
this occasion he seems to allude to the libations of water 
from the Pool of Siloam.’ So in viii. 12, in the words “I am 
the light of the world” there is probably an allusion to the 
light of the golden candelabra at the same festival* These 
candelabra were in the court of the women. The author does 
not tell us this; but he says that Jesus spoke these words in 
the treasury,° and the treasury, we know, was in the court of 
the women. The libations and the lights symbolised events 
in the journey through the wilderness, the water from the 
rock and the pillar of fire, and it is only when we bear this in 
mind that the full force of Christ’s words becomes apparent. 
Now, these delicate allusions, which we have to interpret by 
information derived from other sources, seem to point to an 

1 vii, 2. <a ay WS 3) wil. 97, 30. 

4 The Rev. P. M. Strayer, however, would transfer x. 22 to the 
beginning of chapter viii. (1.6.,) vill. 12, according to the genuine text), 
and refer this and the two following chapters to the Feast of Dedication. 
“JT am the light of the world” connects itself more naturally with this 
festival, which was called φῶτα (Josephus, Ant., x1I. vii. 7). See a note 
on “Transpositions of Text in St John’s Gospel,” in the Journal of 
Theological Studies, 11. pp. 137 8644. 

5 viii. 20. 


23 


354 THE AUTHOR A JEW 


author who wrote from his own knowledge, and quite 
naturally supplied in his thought what was wanting to his 


diction. 


He is familiar with other Jewish customs and modes Of : 


thought. He knows the stress which was laid on ceremonial 
purification, and some of the practices connected with it.t 
He is acquainted with the hostility between the Jews and 
Samaritans, and with their rival places of worship; with 
the objection which was felt by the doctors of the law to 
conversation with a woman in a public place*; with the 
importance which was attached to education in the rab- 
᾿ς binical schools‘; with the notion that bodily affliction was 


necessarily the result of sin. As was long ago observed by — 


Weizsiicker, the Gospel is dominated, both in its narrative 
and conversations, at least so far as the phraseology is con- 
cerned, not by the Greek doctrine of the Logos, but by 
the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. This characteristic 
appears at the very opening of the history, in connection 


with the testimony of the Baptist.’ Here we must notice 


the distinction which has been dwelt upon by Lightfoot ὃ 
between the Messiah and “the Prophet.”® The expectation 
of the Prophet was founded on the promise in Deuteronomy 
xviii. 15, “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a pro- 
phet from the midst of thee, like unto me.” The Christians 
referred this text to Christ himself; and accordingly, as 
Lightfoot remarks, “the form which the conception takes” 
in the Gospel “is strictly Jewish, and not Christian,” and 
could hardly have been adopted by a Christian writer living 
ΤΉ ΟΣ Us 2S Ὁ γα δ. AVI. 28 5 Kix. 91: 2 iv. 9, 20; Vili. 48. 
δια: ἘΠ TGA, 5 xt ae 


® Untersuchungen tiber die evangelische Geschichte, 1864 (2nd unaltered 
edition, 1892), pp. 260 sqq. 


ΤΊ, 19 8ηῃ. 8 Articles, p. 84 sq. ᾿ 
9. aos Wis ΤᾺ» WL Ao) 10 Acts iii. 22. See also vii. 37. 


| 


ἢ 


KNOWS JEWISH MODES OF ‘THOUGHT tage 


in the middle of the second century. We ought to add, how- 
ever, that the Jewish belief about “the Prophet” is rather 
obscure. Our author is aware that the Samaritans were not — 
without the expectation of the Messiah! He refers to 
different popular opinions. Some thought that Jesus could 
not be the Christ, because they knew whence he was, and 
others objected that the Messiah was to be of the seed of 
David, and from Bethlehem,? and yet others that the Christ 
was to abide for ever, whereas Jesus spoke of leaving the 
earth.* The Scriptures bore witness to the Messiah, and 
Moses wrote about him,> and Abraham rejoiced to see his 
day,® and Isaiah saw his glory and spoke of him.” The dis- 
course on the bread of life is connected with the Jewish 
expectation that the Messiah would produce a sign similar 
to the bestowal of manna in the wilderness. This is not 
expressly stated in the Gospel; but our knowledge of it at 
once explains the apparently abrupt language of the people, 
“What sign doest thou?... Our fathers did eat the 
manna.” Now, all this brings us back into Jewish sur- 
roundings. We are not in the midst of a philosophical school 
in a Greek city, but the most universal principles are dis- 
cussed in their relation to a Jewish audience, and in their 
connection with Jewish beliefs. The Logos-doctrine is indeed 
present, as it were, in the background of the exposition, and 
though its terminology is absent, gives their meaning to the 
grandest utterances; but it is not the doctrine of Greek phil- 
osophy ; it is the doctrine of the proem, which treats Jesus as 
the summing up and realisation of the divine thought for the 
world. All this seems to point to a Jewish author. I am 
not sure, however, that it is inconsistent with Gentile author- 


1 iv. 25. Alt) 27; Si yi Aa: 
Aad. 34. 5 v. 39, 46. 6 wilt. 66. 
wien At. 5. γι. 20. 6εῇ. 


356 THE AUTHOR A JEW 


ship, for even the Gentile Church was deeply imbued with 
Jewish ideas; and a Gentile who, like Justin Martyr, was 
engaged in controversy with the Jews, would naturally know 
a good deal about the nature of their beliefs and their mode 
of argument. 

An interesting and purely incidental agreement with history 
has been pointed out, especially by Lightfoot,t in connection 
with the religious sects. The Sadducees are not mentioned 
in the Fourth Gospel, but in their place the chief priests 
appear. Now, at this time, the high priests belonged to the 
Sadducees, so that the apparent deviation from the other 
Gospels is only verbal. Their Sadducean character comes 
out in a curious and undesigned way. We learn from 
Josephus” that the Sadducees were obliged to accede to the 
dictation of the Pharisees, because otherwise they would not 
have been tolerated by the multitude. Accordingly, in the 
Gospel, the Pharisees take the initiative, the one exception 
being after the raising of Lazarus, when the doctrine of the 
resurrection was in question. Josephus elsewhere remarks — 
on the rudeness of the Sadducees both to one another and to 
their equals.* Agreeably to this representation, Caiaphas 
bursts out with the words, “Ye know nothing at all, and do 
not reflect.” This purely incidental correspondence with 
the facts of history is indicative of an author who was 
familiar with the circumstances of the time and place about 
which he was writing. 

Another evidence is to be found in the writer’s familiarity 
with the Old Testament, and his evident ascription to it of 
divine authority. “Grace and truth” are with him, no doubt, 
antithetical to the “law,” as they were with Paul; but no 
sanction is given to the Gnostic rupture of historical con- 


1 P. 86 sq. 2 Ant., XVI 1 
3 Bell. Jud., 1. vill. 14. 1 xe 


HIS PORTRAITURE OF THE PEOPLE 357 


tinuity between the old and the new covenants. Christianity 
is an expression of the highest aspirations of Judaism, and a 
fulfilment of its prophecies! This relation to the Old Testa- 
ment is, of course, what we should expect in a Jewish writer ; 
but I do not think it is incompatible with Gentile authorship. 
The Old Testament was received as of divine authority in 
the Gentile Church, and Jewish modes of interpretation were 
to a large extent adopted; and it is quite conceivable that a 
thoughtful Greek might so imbue himself with Old Testa- 
ment ideas as to exhibit the acquaintance with it and the 
respect for it which are apparent in the Fourth Gospel. 
Justin Martyr’s writings alone are sufficient evidence of this. 

More important, I think, is “the portraiture of the people,” 
which is described at length by Westcott?; for this would be 
drawn easily and truly by a writer who had lived among the 
circumstances, whereas the information would not be easily 
acquired by an historian looking back upon distant events, 
and, if acquired, would not be presented so artlessly afd in- 
cidentally as to be often overlooked by the reader. There 
is the multitude, 6 ὄχλος, with their changeable feelings and 
convictions, who at one time would have made Jesus king, and 

1 See especially i. 45, iii. 14, v. 46, Vi. 45, vil. 37 (alluding to the water 
from the rock), viii. 12 (perhaps alluding to the pillar of fire), 56, x. 34 sq., 
Xli, 14 8q., 37 8η., xiii. 18, xv. 25, xix. 24, 28, 36 sq. See these treated 
more at length in Westcott, Introduction, p. vii. Also Dr August Hermann 
Franke, Das alte Testament bei Johannes, ein Beitrag zur Erklérung und 
Beurtheilung der Johanneischen Schriften. Gottingen, 1885. There is a 
thoughtful review of this work by Schiirer in the Theol. Literaturz., Jan. 9, 
1886. He thinks the author has made a most serviceable collection of 
material, but is so strongly prepossessed in the apologetic interest as to 
render his arguments of little value. In denying the influence of 
Hellenism he is not justified by the evidence, and in making the 
Evangelist place the old and the new revelations on the same level he is 
swayed by a false orthodoxy, and fails to recognise the pervading thought 
of the Gospel, which regards the revelation in the person of Christ as 


distinct and supreme. 
2 Introduction, pp. Vili sqq. 


358 THE AUTHOR A JEW 


who took no part in the closing scenes. There are the “Jews,” 
chiefly, if not exclusively, inhabitants of Judea, the repre- 
sentatives of Judaic narrowness and unbelief, though there 
too exceptions were to be found Among these appear the 
Pharisees and the chief priests, whose characters, as we have 
already seen, are drawn with historical fidelity.’ 

Lastly, under. this head, we must observe that the universal- 
ism, which is thought to be so anti-Judaic in this book, is 
distinctly Jewish in its conception. It is quite conceivable 
that a Jewish Christian might turn completely against his 
own people, and treat their ancient claims as the result of 
prejudice and arrogance; for converts are not always just and 
tender towards the party they have left. But it is not so with 
the writer of this Gospel. He fully recognises the prerogative 
of the Jews, and his indignation at their unbelief is partly 
due to this cause, for they had Moses and the prophets to 
teach them. The Logos was not known by the world, in which 
it was; so it came to its own, τὰ idua—evidently the land οὗ 
Israel—and its own people received it not. | 

The temple was the house of Christ’s Father, and for that 
reason ought not to have been desecrated into a house of 
merchandise.* To be “truly an Israelite” was the highest 


1 See x. 21, xii. 42. 2 See the details in Westcott. 

3 i. τι, Schtirer, in the review of Franke already referred to, dog- 
matically pronounces this reference of τὰ ἔδια and οἱ ἴδιοι to be impossible 
in the connection, which admits only a reference to the world and mankind ~ 
generally. This is a question of exegesis into which we cannot now enter 
αὖ length ; but it seems to me very clear that the words introduce a 
limitation of ὁ κόσμος. Though the Logos was in the world, as the light of 
every man, the world did not know it. So it came more particularly to its 
own, who were chosen out of the world to receive with especial fulness the 
word of God. But even they, with certain exceptions, did not receive it ; 
and 50, finally, still narrowing its range in search of an abiding home, it 
became fiesh in Jesus Christ. While taking this view, I quite agree with 
Schiirer that the reference is to the λόγος ἄσαρκος. 

=n. 36, 


THE LANGUAGE OF THE GOSPEL 359 


commendation, and “the teacher of Israel” was expected to 
understand spiritual things.? The (promised) salvation was 
“from the Jews,” who worshipped what they knew? The 
good shepherd’s “own sheep” are Jews, though he has “other 
sheep which are not of this fold,’ which also he must lead, 
that there may be one fold, one shepherd.* ΑἹ] this falls in 
with the sentiment of a Jew, who felt that his race had had 
great privileges, and been called to a glorious work, but, when 
the crisis came, had proved unequal to their opportunity, and 
through a blind conservatism had clung to the decaying 
casket, while they flung away the imperishable gem which 
it contained. 

The foregoing arguments tend to show that the Gospel 
may have been, and probably was, written by a Jew; the 
following, it is contended, prove that he was an Aramaic- 
speaking Jew, and therefore a native of Palestine rather than 
of Ephesus or Alexandria.° 

The language of the work is Greek, and it is alleged by 
those who impugn its apostolic authorship that it is pure 
Greek, and presents no certain instances of Hebraism. This 
might be true to the fullest extent, and yet afford no evidence 
that the writer was not a native of Palestine ; for it is by no 
means inconceivable that a Palestinian Jew, who resided for 
many years in a Greek city, might acquire a perfect Greek 
style, and the assumption that the Apostle John could not 
have done so is pure assumption, and nothing more. The 
language, however, is not really such as was likely to proceed 
from the pen of one to whom Greek was a native tongue. It 
is not easy to define the qualities of style; but if any one will 
take the trouble of reading a few pages of the Gospel, and 


1}. 47: ATL) BO. δ ν 22: 4 x. 133. ϑηῆ 9 10. 
5 Harnack seems to assume it as obvious that the author was a Palestinian. 
Chronol., i. p. 678, note 2. 


> 


360 THE AUTHOR A JEW 


then a few pages of Plato or Thucydides, I think he will be 
at once struck with the difference, and feel that the rich and 
flowing style of Greece has been reduced to its simplest 


elements. Instead of its full periods and carefully connected | 


clauses, we have a succession of short statements, tacked 
together with the most artless monotony. This distinction is 
immediately perceived even if we take as our standard such 
simple Greek as that of the Enchiridion of Epictetus. Or 
we may compare the proem of John with the preface of Luke. 
The latter consists of a single sentence. In about the same 
space the former has no less than eleven sentences, either 
connected by καὶ or left without any connecting particle. The 
same difference is apparent in a comparison with Paul, though 
Paul was not only a Hellenistic Jew, but was educated in 
Jerusalem, and presumably quite familiar with Aramaic. Or 
lastly, since the author is sometimes supposed to have been 
deeply imbued with the thoughts of Philo, we may observe 


that the styles of the two writers are absolutely different. — 


The Greek of the Gospel is in fact precisely of that kind 
which a foreigner would most easily acquire. But, further, 
the peculiarities which distinguish it from classical Greek are 
Semitic in their character. As Lightfoot remarks, this is 
shown by “the connecting particles,” and also “ by the parallel- 
ism of the sentences, by the repetition of the same words in 
different clauses, by the order of the words, by the syntactical 
constructions, and by individual expressions. Indeed, so 
completely is this character maintained throughout, that there 
is hardly a sentence which might not be translated literally 
into Hebrew or Aramaic, without any violence to the 
language or to the sense.”! These peculiarities cannot be 
explained by the supposition that the writer’s style’ was 
affected by the use of Aramaic documents, or by the adoption 
1 Articles, pp. 16 and 17. 


QUOTATIONS FROM OLD TESTAMENT 561 


of the Greek of the LXX. as a kind of sacred language; for it 
is not marked by the obvious Hebraisms of a too literal 
translation. The purity of the Greek, combined with its 
general Hebraic structure, points to an author whose native 
tongue was Aramaic, and who learned Greek sufficiently well 
to speak and write it correctly, but too late in life to become 
imbued with the genius of the language. The phenomena οὗ 
style, then, which the Gospel exhibits, appear to be in harmony 
with the traditional view. It may be said, indeed, that one 
engaged in the fishing trade by the lake of Galilee would 
have spoken Greek from his early years. This may be true to 
a certain extent; but he would probably have spoken it only 
in his business transactions, and would have habitually spoken, 
and probably always thought, in Aramaic. 

I feel more confidence in the preceding argument than in 
the following, on which Lightfoot lays considerable stress. 
The writer of the Gospel several times follows the LXX. in 
his quotations from the Old Testament; but in a few instances 
he fails to do so, and appears to have had either the original 
text or a Targum before him. In xii. 40 there is a quotation 
from Isaiah vi. 10, “He has blinded: their eyes, and hardened 
their heart,” etc. The rendering is quite different from that 
of the LXX.; but neither does it follow the Hebrew. It both 
transposes and omits clauses, whereas the LXX. adheres to 
the order of the original. Both alike alter, though in different 
ways, the Hebrew imperative, “make fat the heart of this 
people,” etc. We might infer from this that it is simply an 
example of loose, memoriter citation. Lightfoot, however, 
presses the following argument:—‘The LXX. translators 
taking offence, as it would seem, at ascribing the hardening | 
of the heart to God’s own agency, have thrown the sentence 


1 Articles, p. 19 sqq., and a letter in the Unitarian Herald, dated May 22, 
1871, in reply to some strictures by the Rev. R, B. Drummond. 


362 THE AUTHOR A JEW 


into a passive form: ‘The heart of this people was made fat, 
and with their ears they heard heavily, and their eyes they 
closed,’ etc., so as to remove the difficulty. If, therefore, the 
evangelist had derived the passage from the LXX., it is 
inconceivable that he would have reintroduced the active 
form, thus wantonly reviving a difficulty, unless he had the 
original before him.” This argument might be strengthened 
by referring to the fact that the same passage is quoted in 
Matthew xiii. 15, and that there the translation of the LXX. 
is followed; for we thus learn that the Johannine was not 
a current Christian form of quotation. Still I cannot believe 
that the author had the original before him at the time of 
composition; and the most that we can justly say is that his 
reminiscence of the passage was very slightly, if at all, con- 
trolled by the current Greek rendering.! 

The next instance is less open to objection. In xiii. 18 there 
is a quotation from Psalm xli. 9, “He that eateth my bread 
lifted up his heel against me.” Here the writer substitutes 
for the familiar word, ἐσθίων, of the LXX. (a word which he 
never employs) the unusual τρώγων, which is found in the New 
Testament only once outside of his own Gospel, Matthew xxiv. 
38. This, however, is the mere substitution of a synonym; 
what is of more importance is that he corrects ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπ᾽ 
ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν into ἐπῆρεν ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ THY πτέρναν αὐτοῦ, “he lifted 
up his heel against me,” a translation of the Hebrew retained 
by our Revisers. This correction cannot be accidental. 

The instance on which Lightfoot lays the greatest stress, 
and which might seem the most decisive, is in xix. 37, 


ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν This is a quotation from © 


Zechariah xii. 10, where the Hebrew has, “they shall look 


— 


1 The striking expressions of the LXX. are wholly wanting, and the — 


agreements are only in such ordinary phrases as ἴδωσι τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, and 
ἰάσομαι αὐτούς. 


QUOTATIONS FROM OLD TESTAMENT 363 


unto me whom they pierced,” or “unto him,” according to 
some manuscripts, as the Revisers tell us in the margin. 
The LXX. is quite different, ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν 
κατωρχήσαντο, “because they danced in triumph” or “insulted.” 
It is clear that the translators read 17?) (leaped) instead 
of 727 (pierced). Here there can be no question that the LXX. 
has been corrected by reference to the original, and the only 
doubt can be whether the correction is due immediately to 
the author of the Gospel. As Franke puts it, the evangelist 
either had recourse to the original text or made use of 
another Greek translation in addition to the LXX. Schiirer* 
admits the dilemma, but is inclined to accept the second 
member of the alternative. He points out that ἐξεκέντησαν is 
found in other citations from Zechariah. It is in Revelation 
1. 7, where, though the prophet is not mentioned, it is clear 
that this passage, along with one in Daniel, was in the 
writer’s mind. Now, if the author was the same as the 
writer of the Fourth Gospel, this was only an earlier instance 
of his recourse to the Hebrew text. But if he was different, 
still he was a Jew, and may have recognised the error of the 
LXX. Here we must observe that the quotation in the Gospel 
cannot be taken from Revelation, because the agreement 15 
confined to a single word. The passage is cited twice by 
Justin Martyr; and according to Schiirer the citations are of 
such a kind that they go back directly to Zechariah, and not 
to one of the New Testament passages. The first is in 
Apology, 1. 52, where Justin professes to quote seven con- 
secutive lines from Zechariah. As, in the investigation of 
the Gospel question, our apologist is sometimes treated as a 
model of accuracy, it is worth observing that the quotation is 
made up of very incorrect reminiscences of Zechariah ii. 6, 
Isaiah xlii. 5, xi. 12, Zechariah xii. 10-12, Joel 11. 13, Isaiah 


1 In the review, l.c. 


364 THE AUTHOR A JEW 


Ix. 17, lxiv. 11. In the midst of this extraordinary} 
compound, and quite detached from the connection in} 
Zechariah, occur the words as they stand in the Gospel. In| 
these circumstances it does not seem to me wholly impossible} 
that Justin may have derived them from the evangelist. The 
second instance is in Dialogue 14, where the words are 
ὄψεται ὁ λαὸς ὑμῶν Kal γνωριεῖ εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν, and are not} 
expressly quoted, and are referred to Hosea. This, again, does 
not prove any familiarity with the text of Zechariah. Schiirer 
further detects an allusion to this translation in the Epistle} 
of Barnabas vii. 9. But here there is no certain reference} 
to Zechariah ; the word is not the same, being κατακεντήσαντες 3} 
and it is derived, as the context shows, from a purely 
imaginary quotation about the  scape-goat (apparently 
supposed to be in Leviticus). I cannot think, therefore, that} 
Schiirer’s contention is proved, and that as early as the date} 
of the Apocalypse there must have existed a Greek text of} 
Zechariah which contained the reading ἐξεκέντησαν. More} 
important is the remark that the word stands in Aquila and 
Theodotion, and that indications are accumulating that the 
latter is considerably older than is generally assumed. We 
must observe, however, that Theodotion reads καὶ ἐπιβλέ- 
Yovrat πρὸς μὲ εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν. The quotation, therefore, is ἢ 
not taken in its entirety from Theodotion any more than from ἢ 
the LXX. Supposing, however, that it was proved that the | 
quotation was derived from the later version, we should be 
obliged to ask why the evangelist here abandoned the LXX., | 
unless, from his knowledge of the original text, he was aware 

that the earlier translators were wrong. Merely to say that | 
the text of Theodotion may have been in existence, and may | 
have been used in this particular passage, explains nothing. : 


1 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum que supersunt. Aquila reads σὺν ᾧ ἐξεκ. ; ἢ 
but the first words are not given, 


QUOTATIONS FROM OLD TESTAMENT 36s 


_ As a further test of this hypothesis we may turn to Psalm xli. 
Ὁ (LXX., xl. 10), where Aquila and Theodotion read κατεμεγα- 
λύνθη μου wrépva. This translation, although it corrects the 
πτερνισμόν of the LXX., does not explain the Johannine 
rendering. The passage in Isaiah is not given; but, in confir- 
mation of Lightfoot’s argument, we may observe that 
Symmachus translates, “This people made their ears heavy, 
and shut their eyes,” etc, so that he goes even beyond 
the LXX. in altering the doctrine of the passage, and 
throws the entire blame upon the people themselves. It 
is, perhaps, not unfair to conclude that the intermediate 
translators had some similar method of escaping the difficulty. 
I cannot but think, therefore, that the recourse to Theodotion 
is rather a makeshift, which is not supported by evidence, 
and, if it were, would not materially alter the argument. 
Nevertheless, the argument is open to some doubt. The 
undertaking of the later Greek translations, like that of 
our own Revised Version, must have been suggested by the 
known errors of the ancient text; and it is quite possible 
that, before any revision was actually undertaken, it may 
have become a matter of common knowledge, among those 
who cared for the Scriptures, that certain passages required 
emendation. The Christians would naturally turn their 
attention chiefly to Messianic quotations; and it is con- 
ceivable that there may have grown up, whether in writing 
or not, an anthology of passages useful in controversy, which 
differed more or less from the current Greek translation. This 
is, of course, only conjecture; but I think it affords a possible 
explanation of the phenomena of the Johannine quotations.! 

1 See all the quotations classified in Westcott, Introduction, pp. xiii. sq. 
It appears that, while in three cases the evangelist agrees with the Hebrew 
against the LXX., there is no case where he agrees with the LXX. against 


the Hebrew. Franke produces several allusions to Scriptural language which 
accord with the Hebrew, not with the LXX. (Das a. T. bei Jo., pp. 286 sqq.). 


CHAPTER II 


THE WRITERS KNOWLEDGE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY 
OF PALESTINE 


AN important argument is founded on the writer’s knowledge ~ 
of the topography of Palestine. He is the first known writer | 


who mentions Cana of Galilee, so described apparently in 


order to distinguish it from another Cana in Coelo-Syria!; | 
and he was aware that it was necessary to “go down” from ~ 


this to Capernaum.? In this connection we may observe that, 
while Luke, a Greek writer, calls the sea of Galilee a lake, 
and never a sea, our author retains the local practice, which 


is also followed by Matthew and Mark, and calls it a “sea,” — 
and never a lake. When he first mentions it, however? he ~ 
adds to the “sea of Galilee” τῆς Τιβεριάδος, either to explain — 


to his Greek readers what was meant or to indicate the part — 


of the lake which he had in his mind. He also evinces his 


knowledge that Tiberias was situated on the shore* It must 
be remarked, however, that writers of the first century never 
speak of the sea “of Tiberias,” which from the second century 
became more and more the official description.? This might 
seem to point to a second century date for the Gospel. But, 
in the first place, it is difficult to suppose that the reading Tis 

1 ii, I, 11; iv. 46; xxi. 2. See Josephus, Ant., xv. v. 1. 

ΜΙ ὙΠ iV) a7, AO, G1 ova Vee 4 vi. 23. 

δ So it is stated by K. Furrer in an article, “Das Geographische im 


Evangelium nach Johannes,” in the Zettschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, pp. 261 sq. 
366 


_ KNOWLEDGE OF TOPOGRAPHY 367 


TadiAaias τῆς Τιβεριάδος is original, and the name of the 
town may be a later explanatory gloss. And, secondly, if 
the gloss has proceeded from the Evangelist himself, it is 
hardly necessary to cross the borders of the first century ; 
for we cannot be sure when the later name began to be 
used, and the text, if genuine, points to a transition from the 
old to the new designation. If this remark be correct, the 
mention of “the sea of Tiberias” in xxi. 1 can hardly be 
used to prove the later date of the final chapter. We may 
observe, moreover, that Pausanias, whom Furrer cites as the 
first Greek writer to use the later expression, speaks of λίμνη, 
not θάλασσα, Τιβεριάδος. In regard to the remaining topo- 
graphical features delineated in chapter vi., Furrer, speaking 
from personal observation, says they are surprisingly clear and 
exact. 

He alone is acquainted with a “Bethany beyond the 
Jordan,”* but he is quite aware that there is another Bethany 
about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem?; and, accordingly, 
when he first refers to the latter, he distinguishes it as the 
village of Mary and Martha,’ just as he distinguished Beth- 
saida as the city of Andrew and Peter. This is a very natural 
way for an old friend to refer to a village where he had held 
sweet converse with people whom Jesus loved; but it does not 
resemble the manner of a distant historian. While we are in 
the neighbourhood of Bethany we may refer to a touch of 
local knowledge on which Lightfoot lays some stress. In 
the account of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem,’ this 
Evangelist tells us that the people “took the branches of 
the palm-trees,” as though he were alluding to some familiar 
scene, the palm-trees which he knew so well on the Mount of 
Olives, not far from Bethany, “the house of dates.” Matthew 


Δ 28. aaa, 18: 5 ΧΙ ἢ 
4 Articles, pp. 89 86. 5 xil. 12 sqq. 


368 KNOWLEDGE OF TOPOGRAPHY 


and Mark are content with the more indefinite term, “the 


trees,” and Luke omits this feature of the narrative altogether. 


Not far off was the “brook Cedron,” or, more properly, Kidron. ' | 


This is referred to by John alone as having been crossed by’ 
Jesus on his way to the Mount of Olives, so that here again, 
we have an evidence of local knowledge, which is introduced 
quite casually, and might just as well have been omitted. We 
cannot dwell upon the correctness of the description of it as a 
“winter torrent ” (so the word ought to be rendered, instead of 
“brook ”), for this might have been derived from the LXX.! 


We cannot now discuss the various readings. If τῶν (instead — 


of τοῦ) κέδρων, which is supported by a great preponderance 
of the Greek authorities, be correct, and not an error of 


copyists, it only shows that occasionally (as in the passage — 
cited in the note from the LXX.) the Hebrew name was changed ~ 


into a Greek one with almost the same sound, though quite a 
different meaning—a sort of change which is by no means 
without example. The Hebrew, Kidron, means “black” or 
“dark,” and Westcott suggests that it may have been so 
called, not from the colour of the water, but from the “dark ” 
trees that grew close by.? 

We may pass now to other parts of Palestine. The writer 
knows the situation of Jacob’s well,* and that it is deep,* 
which it is. He knows that there was a mountain close by, 
where the Samaritans worshipped.© He knows that there 
were cornfields in the neighbourhood.® Every feature is true 
to the locality ; yet nothing is described. It is the woman who 
lets us know the depth of the well, and the presence of the 
mountain; and it is Jesus who alludes to the cornfields to 
illustrate his discourse. We are not told the name of the 


1 See, for instance, 1 (3) Kings xv. 13, ἐν τῷ χειμάῤῥω τῶν κέδρων. 
2 Commentary, p. 267. 3 iv. 6. 4 ἡγ, 11. 
© ἀν: 20: 6 iv) 35. 


ΝΟ δοῦν ἡ. ἡ χυλὸν ον κω 


AENON 369 


mountain, or that the Samaritans had a temple there. There 
is a total absence of the literary art of a distant narrator. 
The author seems to have vividly before his own mind the 
scene which he knew so well in former days, and quite to 
forget that his readers cannot possibly know it as well as he 
does himself. This mode of treatment appears to me to be a; 
strong evidence of first-hand knowledge. One difficulty, how- 
ever, there is,—the allusion to a city called Sychar!; but this 
we must reserve till we are treating objections. Again, the 
writer is acquainted with the little known city of Ephraim, 
situated north-east of Jerusalem. And, lastly, he mentions 
the otherwise unknown Aenon, where there were “many 
waters.”? The name is certainly Semitic, being formed from 
py, a fountain, whether it be an adjectival form, or the 
Chaldee plural, or a compound, meaning the well of the 
dove. We cannot therefore ascribe it to the invention of a 
Greek writer. Besides, we are told that this place was near 
Salim, and the allusion to what was done beyond the Jordan + 
shows that it was in western Palestine. Now, “a place 
bearing the name of ’Aynin has been found not far from 
a valley abounding in springs to the north of Salim, which 
lies not far to the east of Nablous.”®> Whether this be the 


ay. Ἐς 2 ΧΙ ΟΝ * ii, 24, eu. 26. 

5 Westcott, Commentary, p. 58, with a reference to Palestine Exploration 
Report, 1874, pp. 141 sg. The page in the reference is wrongly numbered. 
The article is on pp. 191 sq. of the “‘ Quarterly Statement” of the Palestine 
Exploration Fund. ’Aynun is three or four miles north of the springs. 
Lieut. Conder remarks that it is “on one of the main lines through the 
country from Jerusalem to Nazareth. It has been suggested that our 
Lord’s journey through Samaria was with the object of visiting the 
Baptist, and, were such the case, he ‘needs must’ pass by Shechem in 
order to arrive at the springs of Wady Far‘ah ”—the springs in question. 
An objection to this identification is the distance (about seven miles) from 
Salim to the springs. Dr Mommert, in a recent work, thinks the locality 
was on the east of Jordan ; but Schiirer finds his arguments unconvincing. 
(Aenon und Bethania, die Taufstdtten des Téiufers, 1903. Reviewed by 

: 24 


370 KNOWLEDGE OF TOPOGRAPHY 


Aenon intended or not, the Semitic name is an evidence of 
local knowledge. And we must once more observe how casual 
is the allusion which places it on the west of the Jordan. 
There is no statement to this effect; it is simply that the 
speaker’s language is exactly adapted to the situation. 

No less interesting are the allusions to places in Jerusalem, 
I have already given instances of the writer's knowledge 
of the temple, and this is hardly made more impressive by 
the mention of Solomon’s porch!; for this might possibly 
have been suggested by Acts 111. 11. Yet even here there 
is an instructive little difference between the two writers. 
The author of Acts, as though referring to something not 
familiarly known, speaks of “the porch which is called 
Solomon’s”; the evangelist, as though reviving an ancient 
habit, simply gives the name to which he had been accustomed, 
“Solomon’s porch.” More remarkable is the allusion to the 
time in which the temple was built.2. The Jews are repre- 
sented as saying that the ναός was built in forty-six years, 
This is such a casual statement that we cannot suppose it to 
have been introduced in order to display the writer’s archzo- 
logical knowledge. The fact cannot have been learned from 
Josephus, for Josephus expressly says that the vads was built in 
a year and six months.* Here, then, there is at first sight a 
complete departure from historical accuracy. The connected 


Schiirer in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, May 9, 1903.) Furrer selects 
the springs of ’Ain-Fara, about two hours distant from Jerusalem, the 
ravine higher up being called Wadi Selém (“Das Geographische im 
Evan. nach Johan.,” in Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, p. 258). Dr Cheyne 
conjectures that for rod Σαλήμ we should read Ἱερουσαλήμ, and identify 
Aenon with ‘Ain Karim (Encycl. Bib., Salim). Bretschneider thought 
there was no such place, and that the writer, through ignorance, mistook 
hnyv, fontes, in the book which he used, for the name of a city (pp. 96 sqq.). . 
But it is very unlikely that a Greek author could have read an Aramaic 
book at all. . 

3, σ᾿ 28. 3 ii, 20. 

3 Ant., XV. xi. 6. I do not remember seeing any notice of this. 


BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE a7,1 


works, however, were not completed till the reign of Nero.! 
The total time, therefore, occupied in the rebuilding was far 
more than forty-six years; so that the time mentioned in the 
Gospel does not correspond with a well-known fact, but can 
be found only by reckoning the number of years which 
elapsed from the beginning of the work till the moment when 
the words are said to have been spoken. But this period is 
not very easily ascertained. Josephus tells us that the work 
was begun in the eighteenth year of the reign of Herod? 
Now Herod received the title of king from the Romans in 
B.c. 402 This date is too early, and would give a longer 
period than is mentioned in the Gospel. We find, however, 
that Herod did not become king de facto till the year 37 B.c.,* 
and we thus reach the year 20-19 B.c. for the beginning 
of the building. The addition of forty-six years brings us to 
27 or 28 A.D. This corresponds closely with the chronology 
of Luke; and, though there is some uncertainty about a 
year or two, yet, as Lightfoot remarks, “after all allowance 
made for this margin of uncertainty, the coincidence is 
sufficiently striking.”® It is most unlikely that a Greek 
teased himself with this troublesome investigation, and then 
allowed his antiquarian knowledge to slip out in such a way 
that no one would take any notice of it; and the statement 
is most easily explained by ascribing it to the writer's 
recollection. The use of vads can hardly create a difficulty, 
for it takes up the word used by Jesus, and might be loosely 
applied to the temple with all its connected ornaments and 
buildings, without which the sanctuary itself might hardly 
seem to be complete. Elsewhere the writer invariably uses 
ἱερόν. 
1 Ant., XX. ix. 7, τότε καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐτετέλεστο. 


2 Ant., XV. Xi. I. 3 Josephus, Ant., XIV. Xiv. 4. 
4 Ant., XIV. XV. 14, XVi. 2. 5 Articles, p. 91. 


372 KNOWLEDGE OF TOPOGRAPHY 


There are some other local touches which are not likely 
to have proceeded from a Greek. We are told that “there 
is in Jerusalem, at the sheep-gate, a pool,t which is called in 
Hebrew Bethzatha.”2 I follow here the reading of Tischendorf 
and Westcott and Hort, instead of the usual Bethesda.? No 
other Jewish writer mentions this pool, and there is some 
uncertainty about the meaning of ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ. There 
was a gate known by this name, which is mentioned in 
Nehemiah iii. 1, 32, xii. 39; but there πύλη is always 
expressed, and no instance is cited of the omission of this 
word. This pool, however, notwithstanding some uncertainty 
as to its situation,t cannot have been invented by a Greek ; for, 
whichever reading be correct, the name can be explained from 
Aramaic. Bethesda represents sipnnv3, the house of mercy, 
or, perhaps, as Brose suggests, Nqws ma, “locus effusionis ” ;° 
Bethzatha, xn na, the house of the olive. Now, a Greek, 
writing long after the destruction of Jerusalem, was not 
likely to know anything about this pool; and if he invented 
it, and obtained an Aramaic name for it from some friendly — 
Jew, he would most probably have told us what the name 
meant. But all is as we should expect, if the writer simply 
speaks from his own recollection. 

The Pool of Siloam is well known, and we cannot lay 
much stress on the mere fact that it is referred to.® But 


1 Or rather “a swimming-bath,” κολυμβήθρα. a ee 

3 See a note on the reading by Nestle in the Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, 
pp. 171 sq. 

* A pool, which seems best to correspond with the description, was 
discovered by Herr K. Schick ; and a full account of it is given in the 
“Quarterly Statement” of the Palestine Exploration Fund for 1888, 
pp. 115 sqg. Some further particulars are given in 1800, pp. 18 sqq. 

® See two articles by Brose on “ Der Teich Bethesda” in the Theolog. 
Stud. und Krit., 1902, pp. 133 844. ; and 1903, pp. 153 sqg. He thinks the 
troubling of the water was caused by the discharge, through a canal, from 
one of the receptacles in the temple containing the blood from the sacrifices. 

SENG. 


SILOAM, AND GABBATHA 373 


the author tells us that it means “sent,” whether he regarded 
it as typical of Christ, the “Sent” of God, or because he was 
struck with the sending of the blind man to it, or simply 
referring to the intermittent sending forth of the water. 
Now this interpretation could not easily be derived from the 
Greek form of the word. The original is mby applied to 
the sending or outflow of the water. This is transliterated 
into Σιλωάμ by the LXX. in Isaiah viii. 6. The writer, 
therefore, accepts the current Greek form, but, without 


giving any explanation to his readers, falls back on a Semitic 
word, which, to all appearance, he must have derived either 
from his actual knowledge of the place or from his familiarity 
with the Hebrew Scriptures; and then he gives it an inter- 
pretation which, though probably not the one from which 
the pool really received its name, is nevertheless gram- 
matically admissible.* , 
That the Pretorium and Golgotha are mentioned is not 
surprising, as we hear of them in the other Gospels; but John 
alone informs us? that Pilate’s tribunal was in a place called 
“pavement,” or in Hebrew Gabbatha. The use of a pavement 
or mosaic for the tribunal is in agreement with Roman 
custom ; but what deserves particular notice here is that the 
popular name did not correspond with that used by the 
Romans. The writer does not say that the place was named 
Gabbatha, which is by interpretation Pavement, but rather 
implies, I think, that the two names had different meanings, 
although he does not translate the Aramaic word. The 
latter, whatever be its precise derivation, seems undoubtedly 
to have been given to the place from its elevated or open 
1 “Sent” would be properly my, but the other form is said to be 
admissible as a strengthened participle kal, with a passive meaning, or a 
form of the participle piel. Liicke is inclined to believe, on other 


grounds, that the clause is an early gloss. 
ie se am ee 


374 KNOWLEDGE OF TOPOGRAPHY 


position! What Greek of the second century was likely 
either to know this or to invent it? 

In regard to the whole argument founded on the topo- 
graphical knowledge of the writer, I think we must say that 
it is confirmatory of the traditional view. A Greek native of 
Palestine, or one who had travelled or lived some time there, 
might, no doubt, have a considerable knowledge of the country. 
But I do not think the latter would present his knowledge in 
such an incidental way. He would feel the need of giving 
some fuller description of places which had interested him, 
and he would not be content with casual local touches, which 
are perfectly correct, but quite inadequate for the uninstructed 
reader. Nor would he allow his little items of Aramaic 
knowledge to slip so artlessly from his pen. This last 
difficulty would apply also to a Greek native of Palestine, 
though such a one might have picked up some scanty acquaint- 
ance with the popular dialect. It is not, of course, impossible 
that a Greek may have collected the necessary information; 
but there is nothing in this part of our subject to suggest — 
Greek authorship, and the facts fit most easily into the old 
belief that the work was written by a Jew who was familiar 
with Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem. 

1 See the commentaries, and Keim, Gesch. Jesu, 111. p. 365, note 2. 
According to Dalman, the original word, x7n33, properly denoted baldness 
on the front part of the head, and was a suitable designation of the open 


space before the tower of Antonia, which served as a place of justice. 
Die Worte Jesu, i. 1898, p. 6. 


CHAPTER III 
ALLEGED SIGNS THAT THE WRITER WAS AN EYE-WITNESS 


THE argument is pushed a step farther when it is maintained 
that the Gospel contains various indications that the writer 
was an eye-witness of the events which he records. For 
instance, he specifies particular days, for no apparent reason. 
except that he remembered them,’ and sometimes even 
mentions the hour.2 He often names the disciple who was 
the speaker, even when the remark is not of great conse- 
quence; Philip? Andrew,‘ Thomas,’ Judas not Iscariot. He 
tells us that Malchus was the name of the servant whose ear 
Peter cut off’—a fact of no importance, but one likely to be 
mentioned if the writer really knew the high-priest,? and 
related the occurrences from memory. I have already 
referred to his knowledge of various places, and have only to 
remark here that he connects various incidents with them, 
frequently for no discoverable reason beyond the fact itself? 
We must add to these particular examples the graphic 
character of the work throughout. Take especially as instances 
of this the scene with the woman of Samaria, the healing of 


345:20, 35, 49) Heads 2 i. 39, iv. 6, 52. 
oWwie' 2aav. δ 4 vi. 8. 

5 xi. 16, xiv. 5, as well as the more important occasion, xx. 25, 28. 

πος ἵν 23. 7 xviii. Io, 8 xviii. 15. 


9 See Salmon, Introd., pp. 325 844. ; Weizsiicker, Untersuch., pp. 253 866.» 
262 sqq. 
375 


376 THE AUTHOR ΑΝ EYE-WITNESS 


the blind man, the raising of Lazarus. What perfect pictures 
these form, harmonious in every part, and presenting in 
detail a variety of character in entire consistency with the 
alleged circumstances. The Gospel is sometimes spoken of as 
though it were a monotonous unfolding of the Logos doctrine, 
and brought before us a number of shadowy puppets, marked 
by no distinguishing features. I cannot but think that this 
view is partly owing to the prepossessions of critical dog- 
matism, but partly also to the identity of style and tone 
which, wherever you may open the book, at once betrays the 
author. The simplicity is not the simplicity of Genesis or 
Homer, in which we forget all but the persons and events that 
are brought before us; the dramatic power is not that of 
Shakespeare, in which the author is hidden behind his own 
creations. On the contrary, everything seems more or less 
transfused with the individuality of the writer; and I think 
this fact sometimes causes us to overlook the wonderful variety 
of character that passes before us, and the graphic nature of 
some of the descriptions, which imprints the scenes for ever 
more on the imagination. 

To the above argument, however, I am unable to attach 
the weight which is given to it by many writers. It is 
valuable as pointing out the consistency of the book with 
the external evidence; but as an independent proof of 
authorship, I doubt whether it can be relied upon. The 
introduction of names and details is quite in accordance with 
the usage of apocryphal composition. In the story about the 
wonderful vine in the millennium we are told that Judas the 
traitor did not believe, and asked how such productions would 
be effected! Elsewhere it is said that “Salome asked, how 
long shall death have power.”2 Clement of Alexandria 


1 Trenzeus, V. xxxiii. 3. 


2 Clem. Al., Strom., iii. 6 and 9, pp. 532 and 539 sq. 


APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE 377 


informs us that the saying, “Let the dead bury their dead, 
but follow thou me,” was addressed to Philip In the Prot- 
evangelium of James we are introduced to Joachim and 
Anna, the parents of the Virgin Mary, to the high-priest 
Reuben, and to Anna’s servant Judith? and an anecdote is 
told about Salome.? In the Acts of Pilate the woman with 
the issue of blood appears under the name of Bernice‘; the 
two thieves, who were crucified with Jesus, are called Dysmas 
and Gestas®; and Phineas a priest, Adas a teacher, and 
Angzus a Levite, are represented as having heard Jesus 
speaking to his disciples after the resurrection.6 From the 
History of Joseph the Carpenter we learn the names of 
Joseph’s two daughters, Assia and Lydia.” The exact date 
of Joseph’s death is fixed, the 26th of the month Abib®; and 
the account of the old man’s closing hours, which is put into 
the mouth of Jesus himself, is related with a graphic detail 
which might be thought to betray the hand of an eye-witness, 
if anyone cared to maintain such an absurd thesis. The 
narrative, too, of Christ’s descent into Hades and victory 
over it, in the second part of the Acts of Pilate, possesses a 
picturesque vividness which is certainly not founded on any 
credible tradition. The Fourth Gospel and these apocryphal 
productions belong, of course, to wholly different orders ° of 
literature, and I am not comparing them except in the one 
point of their being so circumstantial and graphic in their 
descriptions. Indeed, the craving for this is the parent of 
apocryphal literature. We naturally wish to make clear and 
sharp to the imagination what history has left in dim and 
vague outlines; and even modern and critical lives of Christ 
1 Strom., iii. 4, p. 522. 2 §§ 1 and 2. 3 §§ το and 20. 


4 Or Veronica. In the Greek, Form A, § 7. 
5 ite? 


9. 
7 §2. The book belongs, perhaps, to the fifth or sixth century. 
8 §§ 15 and 29. 


378 THE AUTHOR AN EYE-WITNESS 


are by no means free from conjectural details, which give 
warmth and colour to their representations. The discerning 
reader takes these at their true value, and, having some 
imagination of his own, is perhaps as much offended as 
helped by their insertion. But many find them necessary 
in order that the ancient scenes may assume reality and life 
within their thought; and they soon confound together as 
equally true the pictorial embellishments and the historical 
nucleus around which they are grouped. I see no reason to 
suppose that the apocryphal Gospels were meant to deceive 
any more than Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. 
The difference between a poor and a grand imagination, 
between pedestrian prose and ethereal flights of poetry, does ; 
not seriously affect the motive of composition; and it is not 
inconceivable that some prose-writing Milton might compose 
a Gospel intended to exhibit, through scenes partly historical, 
partly bodied forth by the imagination, the profoundest 
meaning of Christ's message to the world, and that in the course 
of time more sluggish and less aspiring minds would confound 
together the symbol and the fact, and mistake for things of | 
earth what was to be spiritually understood. These con- 
siderations certainly shake my faith in the argument founded 
on the supposed marks of an eye-witness; for amplitude of 
detail is not characteristic of an eye-witness, nor, if it be 
drawn from the writer’s imagination, is it necessarily an 
evidence of fraud.1 

There is another reflection also which throws doubt upon 
this argument. It is sometimes said that to produce an 

1 We may add that details, such as an eye-witness might give, may be 
handed down by tradition. In illustration of this the Rev. J. A. Cross 
points out the greater detail in the Synoptics, in the accounts of the feeding 
of the five thousand, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and the 


occurrences in Gethsemane. (See an article in the Ezpositor, 4th Series, vi., 
1892, pp. 127 844.) 


THE WORK UNIQUE 379 


antrue narrative possessing such verisimilitude as the Gospel 
would have been quite beyond the capacity of any writer of 
the second century: such an author would be without 
example; such a work would be a literary miracle. In 
making this allegation people seem to forget that the book 
is in any case unique. Whether it be true history, or the 
offspring of spiritual imagination, or a mixture of both, no 
‘one, so far as we know, could have written it in the second 
or any other century, except the man who did write it; and 
to assert that an unexampled, unknown, and unmeasured 
literary genius could not have done this or that appears to 
me extremely hazardous. In this connection we cannot 
forget that the author’s fullest graphic power is displayed in 
narratives, such as that of the raising of Lazarus, which are 
most exposed to objection on purely critical grounds, or, like 
the conversation with the woman of Samaria, at which John 
was not present. 


CHAPTER IV 
CONCLUDING ARGUMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS 


ONE or two other detached arguments must be noticed before 
we leave this portion of our subject. Attention has been 


called to the fact that our author refers to the Baptist simply 


as John, without the addition of 6 βαπτιστής or ὁ βαπτίζων; 
and it is suggested that he does so because his own name 
was John, and he was the only man with whom the Baptist 
was likely to be confounded. This argument does not strike 
me as possessing much force. Neither Mark nor Luke intro- 
duces the distinctive epithet, when John is first named, and 
neither writer ever appends it except through the reported 


words of another. If it be said that at all events a writer of 


the second century would have used the familiar designation, 
I may observe that Justin Martyr names John several times; 
but, when he first introduces him, he does not describe him 
as the Baptist, and, unless I have overlooked some passage, 
he only once calls him so except when he is expressly quot- 
ing from the Gospels. Indeed, he omits it even when he is 
alluding to, though not quoting, passages in the Gospels 


where it occurs. I am afraid, therefore, that this argument, 


which at first sight has an enticing look, must be dismissed. 


I may allude here to a suggestion of Weizsicker’s, that so 


: 
: 


much stress is laid upon the testimony of the Baptist because : 


there were disciples of his still left in Ephesus, who may 
380 


2 


ἡ 


DEPARTURE FROM TRADITION 381 


have been involved in the controversy against the Christian 
faith! This is interesting, but hardly amounts to an argu- 
ment. ; 

The Gospel, as we have seen, departs widely from the 
synoptical tradition ; and it is contended that no writer of 
the middle of the second century would have ventured on 
such a deviation, or, if he had ventured on it, could have 
hoped to procure acceptance for his book. If we are obliged 
to suppose that the Gospel was from the first intended to be 
taken as literal history, I think there is great force in this 
argument. Many differences from the synoptics lie upon the 
surface, and were perceived and felt to be difficulties at an 
early period. Before the date of Justin's apologetic writings 
we know that certain Gospels were established in ecclesi- 
astical use as the authentic records of the life and teaching 
of Christ, and that these (even if they were not our present 
Gospels) were on the whole conformed to the synoptical 
account. A new Gospel which obviously departed from this 
account, and even seemed to contradict it in important points, 
would have been sure to excite suspicion and opposition ; and 
consequently a writer who wished to procure acceptance for 
new incidents and new theological thoughts would have tried 
to fit them into the framework of the older history. This 
: argument diminishes in force in proportion as we recede 
towards the first century, and approach the time when there 
‘was still a living tradition, and the synoptics were less 


_ exclusively in occupation of the field. I cannot but think, 
however, that the effect of this consideration is lessened if we 
once admit that the writer consciously imported an ideal 
element into his work, and that at the time of its publication 

it was accepted as less strictly historical than the older 
~ narratives, as a spiritual interpretation rather than a literal 


1 Das Apost. Zert., Ῥ. 549. 


382 CONCLUDING ARGUMENTS 


record of Christ’s life. But even on this supposition I think 
that a writer who was utterly unknown and without public 
influence (for this must be part of the hypothesis) would have 
anticipated the attacks of a much larger party of Alogi than 
actually arose, and would not have encumbered himself with 
needless difficulty by forsaking the accepted ecclesiastical 
lines. This argument, therefore, certainly appears to possess 
some force in vindicating the early date of the Gospel. It 
has no direct bearing on the authorship except to this extent, 
that those who regard the Gospel as strictly historical — 
maintain very justly that only one who personally knew 
the facts would have ventured to remodel the current ; 
tradition. This will. have less weight in proportion as 
we are obliged to admit the presence of onbistorioall 
elements. 
Finally, it is urged that the total absence of allusion to the ' 
great controversies of the second century is conclusive proof of i 
the early date of the Gospel. It is admitted on all hands that — 
the work has a theological purpose. It is maintained by those 
who deny the Johannine authorship that it is, to say the least, — 
deeply coloured by the thoughts of the writer; and certainly — 
in his Proem he has free scope for exposing the errors of his 
day. How is it, then, that he moves serenely upon his own 
heights, and takes no notice of the strife that raged beneath — 
him, and threatened to rend the Church into fragments ? ‘The . 
distinguishing features of the second century are the rise and — 
growth of the great Gnostic systems, the appearance of 
Montanism, and the Paschal controversy; and we must re- — 
member that the two last particularly concerned Asia Minor, © 


-. ome 


where the Gospel is said to have been written, and the first 
not only sought a home in various parts of the empire, but — 


— 


especially affected Alexandria, to which some would transfer — 


— 


our evangelist. I think we may safely affirm that, if we 


Ἄν. 


NO ALLUSION TO LATE CONTROVERSIES 383 


except Docetism, which is said to have been a very early form 
of heresy, no one could suspect, from reading the Gospel and 
First Epistle of John, that such controversies ever existed, and 
that there is not a single passage which receives a clear and 
unquestioned illumination from our knowledge of them. It is 
true that allusions have been discovered to these exciting 
themes. But can anyone seriously believe that the very obscure 
transference of the last supper to the evening of the 13th of 
Nisan was really intended to influence the Quartodeciman 
controversy ? Where is the sign of polemical intent? Would 
not a writer with such a purpose have made it perfectly clear 
that he really did transfer the day, instead of leaving it to be 
inferred from passages not directly connected with the subject, 
and would he not have pointed out in some way the bear- 
ing of his altered history on the point in dispute? So, again, 
the passages about the Holy Spirit might be used by the 
Montanists, but who could infer the existence of Montanism 
from the passages? If the controversy had already begun, 
would there not be something to indicate that there were 
conflicting views, something to favour or to rebuke the 
Phrygian extravagance? And once more, the presence of 
Gnostic terms only renders more impressive the utter silence 
about Gnostic systems, and points to a time when the latter 
had not yet arisen. If the Gospel occupied the place which is 
traditionally assigned to it, then naturally the Gnostics 
borrowed some of its phraseology, and the faint resemblances 
that exist are fully explained ; but it is not likely that, if the 


conflict had begun, the writer would appropriate Gnostic terms 


without a word of explanation, and without a line of rebuke 
for those who used them in the propagation of error. In all 
these questions the evangelist transports us to an earlier 
period with an unstudied ease and completeness which, I 
think, cannot be adequately explained by his desire to preserve 


384 CONCLUDING ARGUMENTS 


historical verisimilitude. It is true we are dealing with a 
unique writer, to whom the ordinary laws of evidence are not — 
always applicable ; but in this connection we may remark on ~ 
the eagerness with which he attacks what he regards as 
error, and his unsparing condemnation of unbelief. His was 
not the temperament to leave without reproof doctrines 
which he thought were desolating the Church. In the | 
Epistle, moreover, the plea of historical verisimilitude is 
not applicable; and there he attacks vigorously certain 
errors (probably Docetic), but gives not a hint of the — 
controversies which troubled Justin Martyr and Irenzus. 
Surely the reasonable inference is that they had not yet — 
arisen. 

Thus, then, in surveying the internal structure of the — 
Gospel we meet with a great number of facts which are such — 
as we should expect if the traditional account of the author- 7 
ship be true. Some of these are not, indeed, inconsistent with 
a different hypothesis, and, if we possessed no external 
evidence, might leave us in doubt how we ought to interpret 
them, but, taken in combination with the existing testimony, 
they support it by their easy correspondence with it. There — 
are other particulars, however, which afford distinct and 
independent confirmation of the traditional view, or of certain 
parts of it, and seem quite to preclude the supposition of a — 
late Greek authorship. When we unite the two bodies of — 
evidence, and remember the cumulative character of each, 
it seems to me that we have an amount of proof of the 
Johannine authorship which ought to command our assent, 
unless very strong evidence can be produced upon the other | 
side. When men, instead of endeavouring cautiously to 
appraise the arguments on the conservative side, simply kick — 
them over as worth nothing, I think they have abandoned — 
their function as critics, and come into court as advocates — 


OBJECTIONS TO BE TESTED 385 


furnished with a brief. I will try not to imitate them in 
testing the force of objections, and, even when I think these 
are without weight, I will at least treat them as suitable for 
examination, and exhibit the grounds of my judgment. We 
must now proceed to these, the final branch of our inquiry. 


25 


SECTION III 


OBJECTIONS TO THE TRADITIONAL VIEW 


CHAPTER I 
PASSAGES ABOUT THE EYE-WITNESS 


In considering the objections which are urged against the 


traditional view, we may examine first the few passages In — 


which the existence of an eye-witness is alluded to. Dr Salmon 


confidently cites these as a claim made by the author himself — 
“to have been an eye-witness of our Saviour’s life.”1 The © 
passages are John 1. 14, xix. 35, xxl. 24,and 1 Johni. 1. We 


have already referred to John xxi. 24, and I expressed my , 


own opinion that it is a testimony of considerable weight. 
Dr Martineau, however, takes it as a proof that the alleged 
author was already dead, and, if I correctly understand his 
argument, that it was therefore a deliberate falsehood.2 But 
there are such things as posthumous works; and if an editor 
says that a work is by Thomas Carlyle, though Carlyle may 
have been some years in his grave, this can hardly prove that 
the work is not by Carlyle, and that the assumed editor is 
playing a trick. In this connection it is urged that the 


1 A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, ὦ 


386 é 
. ἢ ἦ 
Ν δ 


1885, p. 325. 
2 Seat of Authority, p. 208 sq. 


eS a ἡ —— Ε, 


THE LAST CHAPTER 387 


allusion to the failure of a supposed prophecy that the 
disciple should not die (xxi. 23) proves that he must have 
been already dead. I am not satisfied that this argument is 
conclusive ; for it is surely conceivable that the aged disciple, 
feeling death stealing upon him, might point out that no 
words of Jesus justified the expectation which had arisen 
among some of his devoted friends. Moreover, so false an 
editor would most probably have made the matter a little 
plainer, and have altered completely the supposed form of 
prediction ; for it is not at all evident what is meant by the 
disciple’s abiding till the coming of Jesus, and nevertheless 
dying. Had Jesus come already? We are not told, but are 
left to gather the explanation from previous passages which 
have no direct bearing on the subject. If, nevertheless, we 
admit that the disciple was dead, this might only prove that 
the appendix, notwithstanding its similarity of style, was not 
from the same hand as the rest of the Gospel—a view which 
has been sometimes taken quite independently of the present 
question. The former supposition appears to me the more 
plausible ; for I think even an immediate disciple of John’s, 
writing in all good faith after his master’s death, would have 
made his meaning clearer. At all events, it seems wholly 
improbable that anyone should think it necessary to remove 
the surprise at the death of the Apostle “whole decades” (as 
Dr Martineau suggests) after that event had taken place’; 
and surely, if he had gone out of his way to remove a 
surprise which must have disappeared of itself long before, 
he would at least have told his readers whom he referred to. 
Later legend had a different way of dealing with the question, 
and said that the body of the saint was only slumbering in 


1 This is admitted by Weizsicker, who thinks the passage proves that 
the Apostle was dead, but that he had died not long before. Das apost. 


Zert., Ῥ. 533 84.γ) 536 8. 


388 PASSAGES ABOUT THE EYE-WITNESS 


its Ephesian tomb, as was shown by the motion of the dust 
above it." 

In considering the internal evidence I did not refer to i. 14, 
or to 1 John i. 1, because I think the interpretation of them is 
doubtful. If we are already convinced that the Gospel and 
Epistle are from the pen of the Apostle, then we naturally 
understand these passages as referring to his own experience, 
and regard them as confirmatory of our previous opinion. 
But as their statements are expressed in the plural number, 
they seem to include others besides the writer, and might, 
perhaps, only indicate the historical fact that the Word or the 
Life had become an object of sight and touch. In this case 
“we” would denote Christians in their corporate unity, and 
ascribe to the general body what was the actual experience 
only of the first disciples, the emphasis not being on the ~ 
persons, but on the act of seeing. This explanation does ποῦ 
interfere with the correct reference of ἐθεασάμεθα to eyesight, — 
and not to mental vision. Nevertheless, the contrast between 
“we” and “you” in 1 John i. 3 seems to give a limited range — 
to the former, and, on the whole, the interpretation which 
includes the writer among eye-witnesses appears to be the © 
easiest, though I cannot feel sufficient confidence in it to use — 
it as an argument. 

The remaining passage, xix. 35, has been used as an 
argument against the Johannine authorship, and Dr Martineau 


1 See Westcott’s note on the passage. Others thought he had been 
translated like Enoch and Elijah. The authorities are cited in Liicke, i. 
p. 40. Weiss, following the opinion of many critics on both sides of the 
larger controversy, thinks that the chapter is not genuine, but was added 

to the Gospel after the death of the evangelist (Hinleit., p. 601, Anm. 3, } 
where references are given). See also the arguments in Liicke, who thinks — 
the chapter was added by a later hand (ii. pp. 825 sqq.), and in the article — 
by Kloépper already cited. Harnack thinks the section presupposes the 
death of the disciple whom Jesus loved, but that nevertheless it must be — 
ascribed to the same author as the rest of the book (Chron., i. p. 676). 


THE WITNESS OF THE CRUCIFIXION 389 


puts it forward as if it were quite unanswerable, and had never 
been weighed by any competent judges, and deemed by them 
wanting! Having related the piercing of the side of Jesus, 
and the flowing forth of blood and water, the writer adds, 
“and he that has seen has borne witness, and his testimony is 
genuine (ἀληθινή), and he (kaxeivos) knows that he says true, 
that ye may believe.” Dr Martineau comments as follows :— 
“These are words that can inform the reader only of a third 
person’s testimony. And though the following clause, ‘and 
he .... knoweth that he saith true,’ has been supposed, as 
a declaration of consciousness, to be predicable only of the 
writer himself, the inference is barred by the demonstrative 
pronoun ἐκεῖνος, which no speaker can use of himself. It is 
as if the author said, ‘ And that is a man who does not speak 
at random, but only when sure that his word is true.” In 
considering this argument, let us, in the first place, assume that 
it is unanswerable. Still the passage would not disprove the 
Johannine authorship; for there was no law forbidding John 
to appeal to the testimony of another. It is quite conceivable 
that, while he was attending to Mary, who had just been 
committed to his care, he did not see the piercing of the side, 
but was told of it afterwards by some one in whom he had 
entire confidence. In fact, the only ground for assuming that 
the witness was the beloved disciple rests on the prior sup- 
position that he is identical with the evangelist. This has 
been generally assumed; and the argument, which we must 
now consider, is that this assumption, which has somehow 
suggested itself so easily to multitudes of readers, is barred 
by the very form of the expression. 


I am not sure whether Dr Martineau means that a writer 


1 Seat of Authority, pp. 209 sg. Harnack also relies upon this argument ; 
Chron., i. pp. 675 sq.; and more recently Klopper thinks it “impossible” 
that the writer could refer to himself (Zeit. f. wiss. Theol., 1899, p. 377). 


390 PASSAGES ABOUT THE EYE-WITNESS 


could not speak of himself in the third person, or that, if he 
did, he could not refer to himself as ἐκεῖνος. The first point q 
may be sufficiently disposed of by the examples of Thucydides, 
Xenophon, Caesar, and Josephus. A plausible argument 
against the accepted authorship of the Memorabilia might be 
advanced upon this ground. The writer uses the first person 
again and again in the opening pages of his work, without 
telling us who he is; and then he suddenly relates a conver- 
sation which Socrates once had with “ Xenophon.” What can 
be plainer than that Xenophon, like Critobulus and Alcibiades, 
who are spoken of at the same time, was different from the 
writer? Yet no one doubts for this reason the genuineness of 
the Memorabilia. Now, it has been commonly assumed that 
the author of the Fourth Gospel does allude to himself, in this 
and other passages, in the third person, although he withholds 


his name. In this supposition, considered simply in itself, — 


there is no sort of improbability; whereas it is, I think, 
improbable that a writer who is so fond of supplying us with 


names would have failed to provide one for the beloved j 


disciple if he was looking back upon him, as he was upon 
Peter and Thomas, from the point of view of a distant 
historian. If, then, we admit that the writer may have 
referred to himself in the third person, why may he not have 
applied to himself the demonstrative ἐκεῖνος ἡ A man speaking 
of himself in the first person would undoubtedly avoid it; and 
if, in the course of his speech, he adopted for a moment the 
third person, still indicating himself, he would say “this” 
(ὅδε), and not “that.” But if an historian thinks proper to 
describe himself throughout in the third person, as if he were 
someone else, I cannot conceive why he should not call himself 
ἐκεῖνος on any occasion when he would naturally apply that 
word to another. In the verse before us, as Alex. Buttmann 


τ. ili. 8 sqq. 


THE WITNESS OF THE CRUCIFIXION 391 


long ago pointed out, ἐκεῖνος simply resumes the previous 
αὐτοῦ, and is quite synonymous with it. There is a good 
example of this kind of resumption in v. 38 and 39. Instead 
of ἐκεῖνος we might have had ovros, and this, I think, is more 
usual in the classics, unless strong emphasis has to be expressed. 
The evangelist, however, for whatever reason, has a decided 
preference for the former pronoun. I find that he uses it by 
itself as a subject forty-seven times in the Gospel, and six 
times in the First Epistle, making a feature in his style which 
must strike the most casual reader. In the other historical 
books I notice only eleven similar instances.1 Nevertheless, it 
is not necessary to maintain, with Steitz, that our author’s 
usage is to be explained by his adoption of ἐκεῖνος as the 
translation of the Hebrew xin.2 Buttmann, although he has 
not observed the extent of the Johannine peculiarity, shows 
that, so far as mere grammar is concerned, the use of ἐκεῖνος is 
always conformed to Greek practice. He takes, however, the 
common-sense view which I have presented above, that, if a 
man speak of himself in the third person, he will employ the 
language which is applicable to the third person. We have a 
good example of this in ix. 37, where Jesus says to the man 
who had been blind, ὁ λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ, ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν, Where 
ἐκεῖνος is in all probability the subject, resuming ὁ λαλῶν, and 
the speaker is undoubtedly referring to himself. Two instances 


1 Matt. xv. 18; Mark xvi. 10, 11, 13, 20; Luke xi. 7, xvill. 14, xxii. 12 ; 
Acts v. 37, XV. II, xxi. 6. 

2 See the article by Dr Georg Eduard Steitz, “Ueber den Gebrauch des 
Pronomen ἐκεῖνος im vierten Evangelium,” in Theol. Stud. wnd Krittk., 1859, 
Pp. 497-506. 

3 See his “Besprechung” of the last-mentioned article in the next volume, 
pp. 505 sqg. Steitz bas a rejoinder in 1861, pp. 267-310; and Buttmann 
once more replies in the Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologte, 1862, pp. 
204-216. Their different views do not affect our immediate question. 

4 Meyer refers to 2 Cor. x. 18 to illustrate the construction. It is, 
however, possible to take ἐκεῖνος as a predicate. 


392 | PASSAGES ABOUT THE EYE-WITNESS ~ i 


quoted from the classics by Steitz are decisive. In the 


. “. , . ΕΣ 
Anabasis! we read:—’Ezret δὲ Ξενοφῶν ἐτόλμησε, γυμνος ὧν, — 


ἀναστὰς σχίξζειν ξύλα, τάχα ἀναστάς τις καὶ ἄλλος, ἐκείνου 
ἀφελόμενος, ἔσχιζε. Again, in Aristophanes, Nubes? the 
second disciple asks, οἴμοι, τίς ἡμῶν πυρπολεῖ THY οἰκίαν; 
Strepsiades, referring to himself, answers, ἐκεῖνος, οὗπερ 
θοϊμάτιον εἰλήφατε. To show that literary usage, even in 
modern times, does not always conform to critics’ expectations 
I may be permitted to refer to Thackeray’s Esmond. The 
story is told as an autobiography, but the hero consistently 
uses the third person throughout. According to the rule he 
ought never to apply the pronoun “that” to himself. Never- 
theless, on one occasion he does so:—“In this report the 
Major-General was good enough to mention Captain Esmond’s 
name with particular favour; and that gentleman carried the 


despatch to head-quarters the next day.”* This example is 


the more telling, because it is, 1 believe, the only one through- 
out the work. So far, then, as the grammar is concerned, the 


4 
| 
1 


ραν, See 


verse in question is perfectly neutral in the controversy; but 


there are one or two more general considerations which ought 
not to be overlooked. 

If the author referred to himself, there is no difficulty in 
understanding the appeal. It is as though he said, the 
writer himself witnessed this event, and is quite certain of 
the correctness of his testimony. But if he was relying on 
the authority of a third person, we naturally wonder why we 
are not told who this person was. The man who knew the 
name of the high-priest’s servant might have found a name 
for this important witness; for the people whom he addresses, 
if they lived in the middle of the second century, would 


hardly have been induced to believe by such a vague allusion. | 
Again, the witness is represented as still living, and that in 


BV αν "1.5: 2 1497 sq. 3 Book 11. ch. xv. 


THE WITNESS OF THE CRUCIFIXION 393 


such a way as not to suggest the subtlety of literary art. 
Aéye might refer to an author who was long deceased, but 
οἶδεν points to a living man; and therefore, unless we suppose 
that the appeal to the eye-witness is altogether a piece of 
literary fiction, it is inconsistent with the late date which has 
been assigned to the work. While, therefore, no argument 
against the traditional view can be derived from the structure 
of the passage, the general probabilities of the case seem to 
incline in its favour. 

We must observe further that if the eye-witness be the 
same as the disciple of xxi. 23, the earlier passage must have 
been written during his lifetime, and the later one must have 
been added after his death. It is, however, possible (though, 
I think, very improbable) that the witness was not the 
disciple; and if a person different from the author is really 
meant, it may simply follow, as has already been pointed out, 
that the Apostle himself is appealing to someone else. This is 
the view which I should be disposed to take if the argument 
founded on ἐκεῖνος appeared to me to be valid. The fact is, 
we have no ground for identifying either the witness or the 
beloved disciple with the Apostle John except the tradition 
which is declared to be worthless. 

Dr E. A. Abbott suggests that the writer may have 
intended ἐκεῖνος to mean Christ, of whom it is always used 
in the Epistle! This suggestion is not made in an apologetic 
interest, as Dr Abbott rejects the Johannine authorship; but 
if it be correct, it destroys the objection founded on the use of 
ἐκεῖνος. I think, however, that Kldépper’s objections to this 
suggestion are valid.” 


1 Encycl. Btb., ii., 1809, note 3. 

2 Zeit. f. wiss. Theol., 1899, p. 378. Blass thinks the whole of verse 35, 
and its position, are uncertain (see his article “ Uber Ev. Joh. 19, 35,” in 
the Theol. Studien wu. Krit., 1902, pp. 128-133). 


οι προ κε ΥΩ 


CHAPTER ἢ 


ALLEGED SIGNS THAT THE WORK IS BY A DISCIPLE OF THE 
APOSTLE 


WE must now consider some allusions which have been 
thought to betray the hand of a disciple of the Apostle rather 
than of the Apostle himself. “The disciple whom Jesus 
loved”! has been commonly supposed to be the evangelist 
himself. But, on the other hand, it is urged that this is 
rather the language of an admiring follower, and that we can 
hardly ascribe to the Apostle himself a claim which might 
seem a little presumptuous. In answer to this we might 


resort to the plea that, apart from the Gospel itself, the only 


means we have for estimating the self-assertiveness of the 


ν᾽ 


Se ee a ee ee ge ee Ω 


Apostle John is the request that he and his brother might δῦ 
on the right and on the left hand of Christ in his kingdom, so 4 
that some little grain of vanity may have remained in the old — 
man as he looked back on his intimacy with one who was — 
greater than any philosopher or emperor. But surely the i 
words may have been the expression, not of vanity, but of j 
gratitude. Paul says, “T live in the faith of the Son of God, é 


who loved me and gave himself for me.”? This is the 


language of devotion and humility; and may not John have © 


felt that the deepest thing in his experience was the fact that ἢ 


Jesus had loved him, and treated him as an intimate friend, — i 


i Sil, 23, xix 26, xx. Ὁ, xxk 97, 20. 2 Gal. ii. 20. 
394 


a 


THE’ DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS LOVED 395 


and that he was the one disciple who, above all others, 
would have been lost, not knowing what spirit he was 
of, unless that love had found and chosen him, and 
wrought in him a change great and marvellous? That he 
did not mean to limit this love to himself is plain from his 
own-account. He says that “Jesus loved Martha and her 
sister and Lazarus,”! that “having loved his own who were 
in the world, he loved them to the end,’? and he alludes 
generally to the love which Jesus bore to his disciples.» We 
may add that a follower of John’s would not have been 
likely to use such vague language. Why should he have 
withheld the name of the man whom he wished to glorify ? 
And why should he have simply told us that Jesus loved him, 
instead of saying that he loved him particularly, and treated 
him as his most intimate friend? And why does he tell us so 
very little about him, and nothing except when he is involved 
in a narrative which has to be told about someone else? I do 
not think, therefore, that the passages, when fairly considered, 
point to a disciple of John’s as the author; and still less are 
such obscure allusions intelligible on the part of a later 
writer. 

It is, however, contended further that the supposed 
disciple of John manifests a desire to exalt his master above 
Peter. In xiii. 23 he makes him recline in the bosom of 
Jesus, while Peter has to beckon to him to ask who the 
traitor was. But, as Westcott points out, this incident, if we 
interpret it by the custom of reclining at meals, really shows 
that Peter occupied the first place after Jesus himself, and 
John the second. In xviii. 15 84. it is “the other disciple” 
who is known to the high-priest, while Peter has to wait to 
_be brought into the palace by him. In xx. 2 804. it is hard to 


PERS ἃ 2 Xi'f. 3 xill, 34, XV. 12. 
* See his note on the passage. 


δ THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE 


see where the alleged superiority comes in. Mary goes to © 
Peter first. Peter goes first into the tomb, while the other | 
disciple waits for the arrival of his bolder companion. The 
only inferiority attaching to Peter is that he cannot run so 
fast. So in xxi. 20-23, the only advantage enjoyed by the 

disciple is his longevity. Surely one who wished to exalt 

John might have invented something more striking than 

acquaintance with the high-priest, fast running, and long life, 

wherewith to dignify him; and these are not the kind of 

things to which the writer generally attaches most value.} 

On the other hand, it is pointed out that Jesus, the first time 

he meets Peter, confers upon him the name of Kephas?; that 

here, as in the synoptics, it is Peter who makes the great 

confession that Jesus was the Christ, “the holy one of God” ?; 

and that at the end Peter seems to be ordained the chief 

shepherd of the Christian flock.* 

Some other indications that the Gospel proceeded from 
John only through the mediation of a disciple are pressed 
by Weizsacker. He thinks that this hypothesis will explain 
the ascription to Jesus himself of the high claims which are 
made on behalf of his person and his work. These might 
have been put forward by the Apostle himself, and interwoven 
with the discourses of Jesus as an interpretation of their 
deeper meaning; and then the disciple might have confused 
the report with the exposition. This would explain the 
monotony of the speeches, and the presentation of Christ’s 

1 See the last two arguments in favour of mediate authorship pressed 
by Weizsicker, Untersuch., Ὁ. 300; Apost. Zeit., p. 532 sg. Klépper dwells 
also on the rebukes administered to Peter in xiii. 6-10, 36-38, and xviii. 
10 sq. and on the presence of the beloved disciple at the crucifixion — 


(Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1899, p. 365, note 2). But the rebuke in Matthew 
Xvi. 23 is far more severe, and plain facts may account for something. 
ee 3 vi. 68 sq. 
4 xxi. 15 sqq. See Weiss, Hinleit., p. 588, Anm. 3. Chrysostom says of 
John, πανταχοῦ τῶν πρωτείων τῷ Πέτρῳ παραχωρεῖ (Hom. in Matt., 65). 


HIGH CLAIMS OF JESUS 397 


_ person, which, in spite of concrete features, bears the character 
_ of abstraction.t This argument will, of course, have no weight 
_ with those who regard the Gospel as strictly historical; but 
if we are obliged to adopt the view which was presented in 
the earlier part of this work, it would undoubtedly give an 
easy explanation of some obvious difficulties. But in human 
affairs the easiest explanation is not necessarily the true one, 
and, when it runs counter to the only testimony we possess, 
does not readily command our assent. It is not incredible 
that the Apostle himself may have mixed up report and 
exposition, and that the monotonous and abstract character 
which is complained of may be the result of a uniformity of 
impression which was due to his own idiosyncrasy. It is 
clear that we are dealing with an author of peculiar gifts 
and tendencies, and we cannot apply to him a mode of 
criticism which would be suitable enough to an average 
writer of the nineteenth century. Plato gives us a picture 
of Socrates founded, I presume, on genuine reminiscence, 
and with many a genuine touch of local and personal fact, 
and still presented through a series of ideal scenes; may not 
an Apostle have portrayed the Master of his heart’s devotion 
in colours drawn from half a century of vivid experience of 
his indwelling spirit, and blended together the actual and 
ideal in lines which are no longer separable ? 

If this be possible, it will serve as an answer also to the 
argument that the hypothesis of mediate authorship explains 
the mixture of the original and certain with the uncertain? 
But independently of this answer, I think the hypothesis 
is inadequate; for the Gospel is not composed of a series 
of graphic descriptions, bearing all the marks of autoptic 
testimony, blended with another series where we discern 
the vague outlines and shadowy amplifications of tradition, 


1 Uniters., p. 298 sq. . 2 Unters., p. 299 sq: 


208 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE 


but, as we have seen, the most questionable narratives stand — 
out with all the distinctness that an eye-witness could lend 
to them, so that no critical analysis can separate the genuine 
Johannine from the current popular tradition. Whatever un- 
historical elements you introduce into the Gospel, it bears 
the marks of the same personality throughout ; and therefore 
its phenomena are most easily explained by supposing that 
both the actual and the ideal proceeded from the same 
pictorial imagination, which conceived, with equal vividness, 
the remembered event and the allegorical setting of spiritual 
truth. 

Lastly, Weizsiicker urges that the relation to the synoptics 
is natural in a follower of the Apostle’s, but not in the Apostle 
himself! We have seen reason to believe that the evangelist 
was acquainted with the synoptical Gospels, certainly with 
the synoptical tradition.2 But we must be careful not to 
exaggerate the degree of dependence. It is by no means 
obvious. It has been disputed by able critics, and is now 
generally recognised only in consequence of a careful and 
minute examination. Now a primitive apostle could not 
avoid being acquainted with the primitive apostolical tradi- 
tion, which, indeed, he must himself have helped to form. 
This tradition must have been perfectly familiar many years 
before the Fourth Gospel was written, and why the Apostle 
John should not occasionally drop into the well-known words 
I cannot conceive. I see no evidence that the writer was 
obliged to depend on the synoptics for his language and 
materials; and the real difficulty is that he so persistently 
goes a way of his own, and has no scruple in setting the 
synoptics aside. This last feature is much less easily under- 
stood in the supposed disciple; and, indeed, it seems probable | 
that, if a disciple resorted to the synopties at all, instead of 

1 Unters., p. 299 sq. 2 Pp. 15 sq. 


MEDIATE AUTHORSHIP IMPROBABLE 399 


simply relying on his recollections of John’s teaching, his 
dependence would be much more ample and striking. This 
argument, therefore, seems more against than in favour of 
the hypothesis we are considering. 

Thus the suggestion of mediate authorship, though it is in 
my opinion incomparably more probable than the notion that 
the Gospel was written in the middle of the second century, 
and never had any connection with John, and though at first 
sight it promises a solution of serious difficulties, yet on 
closer examination appears to be unsatisfactory, and does 
not afford the required relief. On the other hand, the con- 
cealment of the name of John is hardly intelligible in a 
disciple. What could have been his motive? Would he not 
rather have made it at least as prominent as it is in the other 
Gospels? Mark does not conceal the name of Peter. The 
mention of Mark suggests another objection. The second 
Gospel was ascribed indirectly to Peter, and yet it bore the 
name of Mark; the third was ascribed in the same way to 
Paul, yet it bore the name of Luke. According to this 
analogy the Fourth Gospel, if it had been written by a 
disciple of John, would have passed under the name of that 

disciple, and would have been referred to John as its original 
source only in the records of tradition. 

A view akin to the foregoing is recommended by the 
authority of Wendt, who has worked out a theory of the 
composite origin of the Gospel with great care and minute- 
ness.'. He believes that the speeches, together with some 
little historical connection, are derived from a genuine 
Johannine document, and that the evangelist, who is not 
the Apostle, made use of this, and incorporated it in his own 
narrative. He carefully distinguishes this from an hypo- 


1 Das Johannesevangelium. Hine Untersuchung seiner Entstehung und 
_ seines geschichtlichen Wertes, Gottingen, 1900. 


400 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE 


thesis of interpolation, and fully admits the unity of © 
structure of the existing Gospel He compares the evan- — 
gelist’s work to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, in which 
earlier sources have been revised and inserted. This hypo- 
thesis helps to mediate between those who ‘accept and those 
who reject the Johannine authorship, and presents some 
attractive features; but as it would require a separate treatise 
to review it in detail, I must be content to state very 
briefly a few general reasons why it has hitherto failed ; 
to convince me. The grounds on which it rests are mainly 
two: first, the presence of primary and secondary elements 
in the narrative, which point to a combination of first-class 
authority with uncertain tradition; and secondly, breaks in 
the connection, and apparent dislocations, which betray the 
hand of a reviser. 

In regard to the first of these, it is surely conceivable that 
even an eye-witmess of most of the events which he records 
might, after the lapse of half a century, endeavour to refresh 
his memory through the recollections of other men, and that 
even where he did not do so he might remember some things 
with greater clearness and accuracy than others. In regard 
to the want of coherence, so far as it exists, we must suppose 
either that the original writer was deficient in the power of 
consecutive thought, or that the reviser stupidly broke up 
and misplaced what he found as a continuous discourse. 
Which view is the more probable must depend on the mental ; 
constitution of the two writers. Now Wendt recognises the — 
fact that the writer of the source was wanting im literary 
skill, and, in spite of the depth of his reflections, he had not | 
the art of presenting clearly to others the connection and 
progress of his thoughts* And although he explains the 
breaking up of discourses by the reviser, and the transference 

1 P 204. 


᾿ WENDT’S HYPOTHESIS 401 
of different parts of the same address to different historical 
occasions, by the occurrence of some remark or some new 
question, which he mistook for a transition to a new speech 
delivered at a later time; nevertheless Wendt is compelled 
to resort to the hypothesis that the evangelist relied on his 
memory of the source, acquired by having read or heard 10. 
This is rather a strange supposition if the man had a written 
source to refer to; for the incorporation of a whole work in 
his own narrative has no resemblance to the quotation of a 
text or two of Scripture, which must have been very difficult 
to find in an ancient manuscript, and which one could easily 
remember with sufficient accuracy. But if we suppose that 
the editor relied on his memory, he would surely introduce 
something of his own characteristic style into his report, 
especially if, as Wendt says, he made the material his own 
and revised it3—an hypothesis which is necessary to explain 
the unity of the book. But confessedly he has not done so ; 
for the language is that of the First Epistle of John, which 
is by the author of the source And further, the style of 
the whole Gospel is the same, so that we have to assume 
that the reviser was such a perfect literary mimic that he 
was able to fling away his own style, and so to write as 
to be indistinguishable from another man. It does not seem 
probable that such a master of literary craft would introduce 
the puzzling dislocations which the hypothesis seeks to ex- 
᾿ plain; and it is easier to believe that these are due to an 
original author, who had a very special mental constitution, 
and, in his rapt spiritual vision, had little care for the archi- 
tecture of logical thought. 

The grounds, then, on which the hypothesis rests are not 
very convincing. But there are also some considerations 


εν τὸ er. 2 Pp. 84 and 100. 
3 P. 51. * See p. 159 “ἘΣ 


402 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE 


which seem opposed to it. The first is the fact, already 
adverted to, that the source is in style and vocabulary in- 


— 


distinguishable from the rest of the Gospel. Even if the 


evangelist deliberately chose to adapt his style to that of 
the source, and possessed a sufficiently tenacious memory 
to retain the phraseology of the source as exactly as if he 
had it before him and copied it, it is hardly credible that 
in his own part he should never have betrayed the differ- 
ence of hand, or allowed any characteristic expression to 
escape him. There is only one word on which Wendt 
relies. The source represents Christ as always speaking of 
his ἔργα, while the evangelist uses the term σημεῖα. This 
difference is so minute that, if it really indicates a lower 
point of view as we pass from the source to the evangelist, 
it can only increase our wonder that the latter has not dis- 
closed his hand more frequently. But surely it is not imcon- 
ceivable that an Apostle might be aware that Jesus habitually 
referred to his “works,” while he himself looked upon these 
works as “signs.” This supposition is seen to have some 
force when we review the particular cases that come under 
consideration. It is evident that Jesus sometimes uses the 
word ἔργον in a much wider sense than “miracle.”! Now, 
there are sixteen instances in which Christ speaks of his 
works. In seven of these it appears to me that “signs” 
would not be appropriate? In eight others “works” is more 
suitable than “signs,” as the former word seems intended to 
convey a larger sense.? Only in one instance would σημεῖον 
be quite as appropriate as ἔργον Again, we must observe 
that the word σημεῖον is not altogether excluded from the 
speech of Jesus,’ and is frequently used by others than the 


1 iv. 34, xvii. 4. 2 iv. 34, ix. 4, X. 37, 30, ai a) ee 
3 v. 20, 36 twice, x. 25, 32 twice, xiv. 12, xv. 24. 
# i, 21: 5 iv. 48, vi. 26. 


WENDT’S HYPOTHESIS 403 


narrator!; and, on the other hand, the word ἔργα is used by 
the brothers of Jesus.2, Thus, on the whole, the words are 
used in conformity with the sense which it is intended to 
convey. When the miraculous character of an event is 
indicated, σημεῖα is commonly used. When the divine 
excellence of Christ’s activity is the prominent thought, 
ἔργα is preferred. It is surely quite in keeping with his- 
torical probability, and with the picture in the synoptics, 
that Jesus himself should lay more stress on the faithfulness 
and beneficence than on the marvellousness of what he did, 
and that the disciple should see in the miracles the “signs” 
of the Messianic calling. Accordingly the sole indication of 
difference in phraseology to which Wendt is able to appeal 
turns out to be rather hollow; and this almost absolute lack 
of linguistic evidence makes the hypothesis exceedingly 
precarious. 

Secondly, there is no direct external evidence of the exist- 
ence of such a source, and it is not easy to believe that a 
genuine Johannine writing would have been allowed to dis- 
appear utterly in its separate form. Appeal is made to the 
similar fate of Matthew’s Logia. If we grant that Matthew’s 
Logia was really a collection of sayings, with some little 
historical explanation, still it would have occupied a very 
different place from the Johannine document. Not only 
was it in Aramaic, but it can have been little more than a 
collection of quite familiar sayings, which formed the staple 
of evangelical teaching, and therefore would not bear the 
personal stamp of the Apostle who thus acted the part of 
editor. But the supposed Johannine source lies outside of 
the general tradition, and, however it may have been 
founded on real recollections, has the indubitable mark of 
its author, and would have been cherished as an original 


111.18, ili. 2, Vi. 30) Vil, 31; 1m) τὸ ΣΧ. 21, X1. 47. a vil. Θὲ 


404 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE 


work, the last precious legacy of the first generation of 
disciples. This reasoning is confirmed by Wendt’s appeal — 
to Ignatius and Justin Martyr, who, he thinks, exhibit — 
acquaintance with the source, but not with the Gospel. 
If the source was so widely spread, and separately known 
at so late a date, the absence of all reference to it, and 
its total disappearance as a separate work, seem extremely 
improbable." 

For these reasons, then, I think we must continue for the — 
present to treat the Gospel as the work of a single author. | 
But a large part of our inquiry will remain unaffected, or, | 
in the opinion of some, will receive confirmation, if Wendt’s 
conclusions should be ultimately established.’ 

The foregoing considerations are largely applicable to the very 


1 There are some good criticisms, going more into detail, by the Rev. 
R. W. Stewart, in the Expositor, Jan. and Feb, 1903, and by Dr Lock, in ~ 
the Journal of Theological Studies, Jan. 1903. 

2 It ought not to be forgotten that a similar hypothesis was propounded 
by Chr. Hermann Weisse (Die evangelische Geschichte kritesch und phil- 
osophisch bearbeitet, 2 vols., 1838). He conjectures that there may have 
been a work like the λόγια of Matthew, containing speeches of Jesus, and — 
also of John the Baptist, which John treasured in his memory, and wrote 
down without any thought of publication. After the Apostle’s death his — 
adherents wished to make these notes, or Studien, as Weisse calls them, 
known to others ; and the editor’s only design was to present them in a 
form which seemed to him necessary to make them intelligible, and 
adapt them to the taste of his expected readers. He was not aware that 
the knowledge which he had of the events which he described was in the 
highest degree imperfect and uncertain. Weisse accounts for the difference 
of style from that of the speeches of Christ in the Synoptics by the 
supposition that John wrote for a doctrinal purpose. A connected system 
of doctrine shaped itself in his mind, suggested, but not immediately 
conveyed, by his Master’s teaching ; and he endeavoured to put together 
for his own private use what he remembered of that teaching as seen in 
the light of his system. Hence it is quite intelligible that his own 
thoughts were so largely interposed. “It is less a Christ-image than a 
Christ-notion awe John gives ; his Christ speaks not from his person, but 
about his person.” (See i. pp. 102 sqq., 11. pp. 184 sg.) This hype is 
brought under examination by Liicke, i. pp. 141 sqq. 


BACON’S HYPOTHESIS 405 


careful statement of Professor B. W. Bacon His principal 
contribution to the subject lies in his appeal to Tatian, who, 
in his arrangement of the Fourth Gospel, anticipates some of 
the results of modern criticism. Professor Bacon believes that 
this surprising fact cannot be explained “by any assumed 
critical sagacity on the part of scribe or harmonist,” and that, 
therefore, extracanonical sources must have been employed. 
In order to assist the judgment of the reader, I subjoin 
Professor Bacon’s re-arrangement of the Gospel, and also 
Tatian’s :— 


“J. The ministry in co-operation with the Baptist. [i. 1-18], 
19-51, [ii. 1-11], iii. 22-iv. 3 (442). 

IJ. The Galilean ministry. (iv. 46a %), 11. 12, iv. 460-54, vi. 
1-71. 

III. The period of exile and Samaritan ministry; Jesus at the 
Feast of Pentecost. iv. 4-42 (431%), v. 1-47, vii. 15-24 (iv. 45 2). 

IV. The visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles. vii. 1-14, 
25-30, iii. 1-21, vii. 31-36, 45-52, 37-44. 

V. The visit at the Feast of Dedication. x. 22-25, 7*, 8a, [85*], 
10-18, 26-39, ix. 1-x. 5, 9*, 19-21, viii. 12-59, x. 40-42. 

VI. The period of retirement in Ephraim. xi. 1-57, xii. 20—36a, 
1-19, 42-50, 360-41. 

VII. The final Passover. ii. 13*, 14-22, [23-25*], xiii. 1-15, 
[16], 17-19, [20], 21-35, xv. 1-xvi. 33, [xiii. 36-38], xiv. 1-31, xvii. 
1—xviii. 13, 24, 14, 15, 19-23, 16-18, 250-40, xix. l-xx. 31 [xxi 
1-25].” 5 


Tatian’s rearrangement of the Fourth Gospel. 


i. 1-ii. 11, iii. 22-iv. 3a, iv. 46-54, ii, 230-25, vi. 10-71, iv. 4-45a, 
γ. 1-47, iv. 450, vii. 1-31, v. la, ii, 14-22, iii, 1-21, vii. 31-52, viii. 


1 Tn an article on “ Tatian’s Re-arrangement of the Fourth Gospel,” in 
the American Journal of Theology, October 1900 ; and in An Introduction 
to the New Testament, 1900. 

2 “The transpositions underscored with a straight line rest upon internal 
evidence only ; that underscored with a wavy line is supported by the 
Sinaitic Syriac. The rest, including all the major transpositions, are 
supported by Tatian.” “Passages apparently less primitive than the 
surrounding sections are enclosed in [ ]. * indicates a corrupted text.” 


406 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE 


12-xi. 57 (without a break), xii. 1-2, 9-11, 3a, 3b-8a, 16, 12-13, 
17-36a, 42-50, 360-41, xiii. l-xix. 17, xix. 23-24, 19-22, 25-27, 
xix. 28-xxi. 24, xx. 210 (repeated), xxi. 25.1 


Now it will be observed that Tatian presents the whole of 
the Gospel, with the exception of a few verses, of which the | 
substance is taken from the Synoptics. The natural inference 
surely is that he had the whole Gospel before him, and that 
the rearrangement is his own work. If the Gospel was at 
that time in the order in which he presents it, its existing 
order is quite inexplicable; and if, having the whole Gospel 
in its present order, he fell back upon extracanonical sources 
as more trustworthy, it is not easy to account for the total 
disappearance of these, for the lack of all allusion to them, 
and for the Church’s preference for a badly-arranged com- 
pilation. I think, however, that the Diatessaron bears witness 
throughout to the author’s mastery of his material. He has 
rearranged the other Gospels as well as the Fourth. The 
order in which Mark appears may serve as a basis for com- 
parison, and is as follows :— 

i, 1-39, ii, 1-iii. 19, iv. 21-25, iv. 85-v. 43, vi. 7-13, iii, 19-30, 
vi. 30-31, iii, 31-35, iv. 1-20, iv. 26-34, vi. 1-6, vi. 14-29, vi. 
32-vii. 37, i. 40-45, viii. 1- χ, 52, xi. 15-18, xii. 41-44, xi. 12-14, 
ΧΙ, 19-xii. 37, xiv. 3-9, xi. 1-11, xii. 38-40, xiii. 1-13, xiv. 1-2, 
xill. 14-37, xiv. 10-54, xiv. 66-68, xiv. 55-65, xiv. 69-xvi. 20.? 

Mr J. H. Hill reckons here twenty displacements, while in 
Matthew there are twenty-one, and in Luke i-ix. 50 there 
are eight, in xx.-xxiv. there are six, and in the intermediate 
sections “there are so many that it has been found impossible 
to decide which parts are displaced and which are not.” In 


1 The above only indicates the order. There are numerous breaks 
where synoptic material is inserted. 

2 There are, of course, numerous breaks where other material is 
introduced. 


ἡ SUGGESTED TRANSPOSITIONS 407 


John, on the other hand, the displacements are only ten! A 
striking example of the boldness of Tatian’s method is afforded 
by his account of the visit of Jesus to Nazareth, related in 
Luke iv. 16-30. He divides this into two visits. In the 
| first the people are friendly, and the account ends with the 
statement that all wondered at the words of grace which 
proceeded out of his mouth. A good way further on the 
rest of the narrative is presented, interwoven with the brief 
record in Matthew and Mark. It seems clear that this violent 
change was made purely upon critical grounds. I am unable, 
therefore, to see that Tatian affords us any evidence of the 
existence of earlier and more authentic written sources under- 
lying our present Gospel. 

There can be no doubt that a changed order in the Fourth 
Gospel would remove from it some of the most serious his- 
torical difficulties; but if it should be finally proved that the 
present order is not that which was originally intended, I 
think it will be more reasonable to ascribe the change to 
some kind of accident than to the blundering of a compiler 
who displays an extraordinary literary genius. Chapter xxi. 
seems to show that the book underwent some kind of editing 
before it was given to the public, and it is conceivable that 
some of the author's sheets may have got displaced. This 
does not seem altogether improbable in the case of complete 
episodes, beginning, like chapters v. and vi., with μετὰ ταῦτα. 


1 The Earliest Life of Christ ever compiled from the four Gospels, being the 
Diatessaron of Tatran, literally translated from the Arabic Version, by the 
Rey. J. Hamlyn Hill, B.D., 1894, pp. 30 sq. 

2 Archdeacon J. P. Norris suggested many years ago that Chapters v. 
and vi. ought to be in an inverse order. He thought vi. and xxi. 
might both have been written after the completion of the first draft of the 
Gospel ; and if vi. was written on a separate parchment, it might have 
been inserted by very early copyists in the wrong place. He points out 
several items of similarity connecting Chapters vi. and xxi. He 
mentions that “Ludolphus de Saxonicé, whose Vita Christi was the 


408 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE 


On the whole, however, I am inclined to attribute the apparent 
displacements to the original writer, who cared more for the 
associations of thought than for the order of chronology, and 
who might refer back to what he had recently written 
without reflecting that the continuity of thought was sup- 
posed, historically, to be interrupted by change of time and 
scene. - f 

great text-book of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, seems to take 
it for granted (without assigning any reason) that the sixth chapter of St 
John ought to precede the fifth.” See his article, “On the Chronology of 
St John v. and vi.,” in The Journal of Philology, vol. iii., 1871, pp. 107 sqq. 
Further references to the literature of the subject may be seen in an 


article by H. Holtzmann on “Unordnungen und Umordnungen im 
vierten Evangelium,” in the Zeit. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, pp. 50 844. 


ἊἝἜ 
x 
7 
ΐ 
} 


CHAPTER III 


ALLEGED ANTI-JUDAIC CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL AND GREEK 


PHILOSOPHICAL TRAINING OF THE AUTHOR 


IN this chapter we have to consider the two arguments which, 


‘in Schiirer’s opinion, remain with unimpaired force.! 


It is said, in the first place, that the character of the Gospel 
is inconsistent with the character of the Apostle. We may 
review this objection under the two heads of John’s general 
character, and of his Judaic position. 

James and John received from Jesus the surname of 
Boanerges, the sons of thunder, and this seems to imply a 
certain vehemence of disposition. It was they who wished to 


6811 down fire from heaven on an inhospitable Samaritan 


village. It was they who, with the assistance of their mother, 
begged that they might sit on the right hand and on the left 
of Jesus in his kingdom.* It was John who told how they had 
forbidden a man to cast out demons in the name of Jesus, 
because he followed not with them.> Then there is the well- 
known anecdote how John, hearing that Cerinthus was in the 
bath to which he had gone, rushed out lest the building should 
fall on him. Irenzus relates this story on the authority of 
some who heard it from Polycarp. This is not first-rate 


1 Contemporary Review, Sept. 1891, p. 409 sq. 


2 Mark iii. 17. 3 Luke ix. 54. 
* Matt. xx. 20 sqqg.; Mark x. 35 sqq. 
5 Mark ix. 38; Luke ix. 49. 6 Tren., III. iil. 4. 


409 


ν 
410 THE GOSPEL ANTI-JUDAIC 


evidence; but such tales are generally adapted, though ofte 
with exaggeration, to some familiar trait in the character ὁ 
the man about whom they are told. Are we to infer fro 
these accounts that the Apostle John was such a passionate 
ambitious, and intolerant man that he could not possibly hav 
written the Gospel? To answer this question we must tak 
a few other facts into account. John seems to have belonged,§ 
with his brother James and Peter, to an inner group amon 
the Twelve; and Jesus can hardly have selected him for thi 
peculiar intimacy unless he found in him something congenia 
to his own spirit. Further, John is by no means prominen 
in such records as we possess of the early years of the Church 
He is mentioned along with Peter in connection with th 
healing of the lame man.!’ He was sent with Peter intof 
Samaria after Philip had preached the Gospel there? But we 
are told nothing of his personal action, and it is clear that 
Peter was the leading spirit. Paul refers to him as one of the 
“Pillars” at Jerusalem*; but here again it is evident that 
Peter and James were the acting and influential men, and 
this impression is confirmed by the corresponding narrative 
in Acts, where the two latter are represented as determining | 
the vote of the assembly, while John is passed over in silence. 
All this seems to show that John was felt to have the weight | 
and capacity of a leader, but was holding his energies inj 
reserve, and perhaps allowing men of lower spiritual gifts to 
step before him. A quiet and thoughtful temperament is by 
no means inconsistent with a certain vehemence, when, on 
occasions, the pent-up fire flashes forth; indeed, the very 
violence of feeling may help to foster an habitual quietude, 
lest word or deed should betray too deep an emotion. Then it 
is surely not without significance that in the three narratives 
which are cited from the Gospels to prove the overbearing 


1 Acts iii, and iv. 2 Acts vill. 14. 3 Gal. ii. 9. 


4 JOHN’S CHARACTER 411 
temper of John we are expressly told that Jesus corrected 
: him. Are we to suppose that these rebukes made no impres- 
‘sion? Is it not more likely that they sank deep into his 
heart, and that the agony of beholding his Master’s crucifixion 
made them ineffaceable? Then, if not before, began that long 
development which changed the youthful son of thunder into 
the aged apostle of love. But now let us notice some corre- 
‘sponding features in the Gospel. Nowhere else is the necessity 
for a profound and searching spiritual change so earnestly 
insisted on; nowhere else is Jesus more recognised as the 
inspirer of a new life, without which men are dead and 
fruitless. Was the writer speaking without experience, or 
was he conscious of a change that went down to the roots of 
his being, and made him a new man in Christ? This birth 
from above, however, does not obliterate, but only glorifies 
the natural disposition; and amid the tranquil flow of the 
Gospel the ancient vehemence flames out with hot denuncia- 
tion: “He that disobeys the Son shall not see life, but the 
wrath of God abides upon him”!; “ Ye are from your father 
the devil, and the desires of your father ye will do”?; “ But 
he said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he 
was a thief, and had the purse, and carried what was put in 
it.” On the score of general character, then, I am unable to 
recognise any inconsistency between what we know of the 
Apostle John and the author of the Fourth Gospel. 

The more special portion of this argument consists of the 
allegation that John belonged to the Judaic party in the 
Church, and that the Gospel is anti-Judaic. Of the opinions 
of the Apostle in the controversy between Paul and the 
Judaizers the only evidence which we possess is contained in 
the Epistle to the Galatians. The argument founded on the 
action of James, Kephas and John, as there described, is 


1 iii. 36. 2 viii. 44. 3 xii. 6. 


“12 THE GOSPEL ANTLJUDAIC 


presented so fairly by Schiirer that I give it in his words: 
“When they saw that Paul had been intrusted with the 
Gospel of uncircumcision, and when they perceived the grace 
which was given to him, they joined hands in fraternal 
fellowship with him (ef. especially verses 7 and 9). They had 
therefore hitherto presupposed the observance of the law on 
the part of those who believed in Jesus, as something which 
went without saying. And they wished still to limit them- 
selves (Gal. 11. 9), in their own activity, to the circle of those 
who observed the law (to ‘the circumcision’). They acknow- 
ledged Paul’s work to be legitimate, but on their side they 
had no desire to take part in it.” .... Whether John “was 
more disposed to fraternise with the stricter James or was 
like the freer Peter we do not know. But even in the latter 
case it must be acknowledged that he still observed the law 
for himself. Peter even did not dare to emancipate himself 
from it. This holding fast to Jewish custom presupposes a 
high estimation of it which does not agree with the funda- 
mental thoughts of the Fourth Gospel. To the Evangelist the 
Jewish law has become something foreign.” ἢ 

This argument suggests several remarks. If the pillar 
Apostles, up to the time of Paul’s visit, had taken for granted 
that the law was to be observed by all Christians, their view 
of its relative importance must have been undergoing a 
momentous, though silent, change; for otherwise they could 
not, after an interview, have abandoned the Judaic position. 
On the hypothesis, the step which they took was as serious as 
it would be for a Roman Catholic to acknowledge the grace 
given to a Unitarian, and concede that all which separated 
them was non-essential. To give Paul the right hand of 
fellowship was to forsake the fundamental principle of 
Judaism, and to issue forth as freemen into a new era. This 


1 Article, p. 409 sq. 


; / JOHN’S PRINCIPLES 413 
advance, which was practically boundless in its significance, 
being an open declaration that faith in Christ was sufficient, 
and that the observance of the law was unnecessary, was 
made even by “the stricter James.” I dwell upon this point 
because it is incomparably the most important in the 
narrative, and yet it is sometimes studiously ignored, and its 
far-reaching consequences are commonly overlooked. Here 
we have the conscious acceptance of a new principle; all 
further change into the highest spirituality of thought and 
practice was but development from this seed, which had been 
germinating in secret, and then first sprang into recog- 
nition. 

The absence of desire to take part in the work of preaching 
to the Gentiles may have been due to want of gift and train- 
ing as well as to personal disinclination. The Jews required 
the Gospel as well as the Gentiles. Paul himself recognises 
the legitimacy of the Gospel of circumcision, and there was no 
reason why the older Apostles should have forsaken the work 
in which they were already engaged. But it is also true that 
men require time before they can perceive the full results of 
a newly-acknowledged principle; and nothing could be more 
natural than continuance upon the old lines till thought and 
experience brought the need of a further change. The same 
consideration will explain why John, while fully conceding 
Paul’s principle, nevertheless did not himself abandon the 
observance of the law, if it be true that he did not abandon 
it. From the Pauline point of view it was a matter of 
perfect indifference whether he observed it or not: neither 
was circumcision anything nor uncircumcision. Accordingly, 
so long as he remained in Jerusalem, both prudence and 
custom would induce him to follow the old practices. His 
doing so might have implied his personal respect for the law, 
such as men are required to entertain for the law of the 


 4I4 THE GOSPEL ANTI-JUDAIC 


community in which they live, but would not have evinced a 


religious estimation of it so high as to be inconsistent with 
Paul’s doctrine. Nor can I see that it would be inconsistent 
with the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel. That Gospel 
represents Jesus as putting his own interpretation on the law 
of the Sabbath, just as the other Gospels do, but I know not ; 
on what ground it can be maintained that “to the Evangelist — 
: 


ἣ 


the Jewish law has become something foreign.” This is 
certainly not proved by the references to “your law” and 
“their law”+; for the object in these passages is not to : 
condemn the law, but to show that the one authority which / 
the Jews themselves recognised condemned them. Indeed, in 


ΠΝ 


one of the passages it is taken for granted that the words οὗ 
the law must be fulfilled? and in another it is assumed that 
“the Scripture cannot be broken.”* Undoubtedly the atti- 
tude towards the law is not that of a Pharisee or of a strict 


Jew; but we have seen that this was consciously left when - 
John gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul. From 
that moment he must have seen more and more clearly that 
the law was the Jews’ law, and not the Christian or universal 
law. , 
It is admitted, however, by Schiirer that John may have — 
gone with the freer Peter; but then he maintains that even 
Peter “did not care to emancipate himself from” the law. 
This statement is not, I think, borne out by the facts. 
Paul distinctly affirms that Peter was in the habit of living as 
a Gentile, ἐθνικῶς ζῇς, for this must be the meaning of the 
present tense, because at the precise moment when Peter was 
addressed he was living as a Jew. So marked was this © 
freedom of Peter’s that Paul treats his withdrawal from the 
Gentiles as an act of hypocrisy. A lapse which carried away 


—— ee ee ὸὺ σὰ ie 


+ Wil. SO) oo WM. 19. E34 αν, 2k, ? XV. 25. 
aie ok, ΕΣ 4 Gal. ii. 14. 


᾿ JOHN’S EXPERIENCES 41: 


‘even Barnabas, and left Paul completely alone, must have 
been temporary; and at all events Paul’s express testimony 
remains that for a time, and until his personal fears were 
aroused, Peter agreed with him, not only in theory, but in 
practice. John, therefore, may have done so, and may never 
have been guilty of a timid departure from his principles. 

So far we have been reasoning as though it were alleged 
that the Gospel was written a week or two, and not forty 
years, after the council in Jerusalem. How much may 
John’s mind have ripened during those forty momentous 
years? Men do not necessarily lose their loyalty to their 
nation because the government commits a crime; but the 
crucifixion of his beloved teacher must have shaken John’s 
faith in the entire system of which that crime was the natural 
outcome. For a time he would persuade himself that it was 
due to some temporary delusion, and hope to win over his 
countrymen. Then persecution assailed his own house. His 
brother James was killed by Herod, and the Jews were 
pleased.1 These bitter experiences may have helped to 
‘prepare his mind for the judgment which he gave at the 
council. After the council the rancour of the Jews continually 
increased, and all hope was gradually extinguished of winning 
them to the Christian cause. Paul had been rescued from 
destruction in Jerusalem only by the intervention of the 
Romans. The strict and blameless James had died a martyr’s 
death. The fiercest passions of a wild fanaticism had brought 
the Roman legions on the scene. Fire and sword had deso- 
lated the holy city and the Temple itself. The sacrificial 
system had come to a violent and ignominious end; and the 
Rabbis had been obliged to save Judaism from utter extinction 
by accepting a large part of the Christian protest, and 
admitting that spiritual sacrifices were sufficient. But still 


1 Acts xii, I-3. 


416 THE GOSPEL ANTI-JUDAIC 


their animosity was not stayed, and Christianity and Judaism 
drifted farther and farther apart. Would it be contrary to 
human nature if the Apostle, after such appalling experiences, 
came to speak of his countrymen as “the Jews,’* to look upon 
them as the embodiment of all that was opposed to the will of 
God, and to the progress of his kingdom, and to regard the law 
as being, however divine in its origin and scope, nevertheless 
the law of Moses, the law of a single people, and far beneath 
the universal grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ ? 
Critics write as though an apostle must be as wooden as a 
Dutch doll, impervious to the agonies of wounded affection, 
blind to the lessons of history, though traced in letters of 
blood, and with a soul tightly locked against the Spirit of 
God. For my part, I cannot believe that a Boanerges was so 
immovable and stupid. 

We may refer here to a remark of Dr Martineau’s. He 
says, “No Israelite, sharing the memory of the λαὸς θεοῦ, 
could, like the evangelist, place himself superciliously outside 
his compatriots, speak of their most sacred anniversaries as 
‘feasts of the Jews,’ and reckon the Jews among the common 
ἔθνη of the world.”* This statement is unaccompanied by 
references. On the feelings with which the Apostle would 
be likely to regard his countrymen sufficient has already been 

1 There is a thoughtful article by Dr. Belser on “ Der Ausdruck Ἰουδαῖοι 
im Johannesevangelium” in the Theologische Quartalschrift, 1902, pp. 168-222. 
The term is used sometimes to denote the Jews as a nation, in distinction 
from other nations. Sometimes it means Judzans, as distinguished from 
Galileans or Perzans. And often it refers to the leaders of the Jewish 
people, the representatives of unbelieving Judaism. And sometimes it is 
applied to inhabitants of Judza who believed in the Messiahship of Jesus. 
He compares this varying usage to a similar indefiniteness in the use of 
μαθηταί, and thinks that it is explicable only by the fact that the author 
was committing to writing what he had often said, in order to assist the 
memory of those who were familiar with his teaching, and thus confirms 


the genuineness of the Gospel. 
2 Seat of Authority, p. 212. 


“FEASTS OF THE JEWS” 417 


said, and I am not aware of any passage in which the author 
“places himself outside the Jewish race, in the sense of not 
: belonging to it by birth. It is the custom of historians to 
refer to their own countrymen by their historical name, 
instead of constantly describing them as “our people,” or by 
"some equivalent phrase. Even Paul, though not writing 
history, speaks of being beaten by “Jews”!; and why a 
Jew writing among Gentiles and for Gentiles should not call 
the Passover and the feast of tabernacles “feasts of the Jews” 
Icannot conceive. That the description is simply historical, 
‘and not used with any contempt, appears from the fact 
that, when the information is once given, it is not repeated, 
and the “feast” is not accompanied by the addition to which 
exception is taken*® The remaining charge, that the writer 
reckons the Jews among the common ἔθνη of the world, seems 
to be founded on some misapprehension. The ἔθνη are 
“nowhere alluded to in the Gospel; but the chief priests and 
Pharisees refer to the nation in its political connection as 
τὸ ἔθνος, and the evangelist takes up and repeats the phrase.* 
‘Pilate also, in speaking to Jesus, uses the words τὸ ἔθνος τὸ 
gov This employment of ἔθνος in the singular is very 
different from reckoning the Jews among the ἔθνη, and that 
it is not inconsistent with Jewish authorship is sufficiently 
proved by its occurrence in the LXX° I am unable, there- 
fore, to feel any real force in these objections. 

We may notice here the only other argument on which 
ΟΠ 2Cor. xi. 24. Thucydides speaks of “Athenians” ; Livy, of “Romans” ; 
_ Josephus, of “ Jews.” 

2 See v. 1, vi. 4, Vii. 2. ‘The πάσχα of the Jews” is mentioned in ii. 13 
j and xi. 55, and perhaps the feast is so characterised because the Christians 
_ too had their πάσχα. 

3 See ii. 23, iv. 45, vii. 8, 10, 11, 14, 37, Xi. 56, xii. 12, 20, Xill. I, 29. 

4 xi. 48, 50, 51, 52. 5 xviil. 35. 

| © See Ex. xxiii. 11; Levit. xxi. 1; Deut. iv. 6; Isa. 1. 4 ; Zeph. li. 9 ; 
Hag. ii. 15; Wisd. xvii. 2. 


27 


Ν᾿ 
418 AUTHOR’S PHILOSOPHICAL TRAINING Ἶ 


Schiirer is disposed to rely. He thinks “the Greek philo- 
sophical training of the author” is inconsistent with the 
alleged origin of the book.! It would be easier to estimate 
the force of this argument if detailed proof were given of 
the philosophical training. In the case of Philo proof would” 
be unnecessary, simply because it is so abundant throughout 


his writings. The style, the mode of thought, the terminology, | 
the express allusions and quotations place the matter at once 


and obviously beyond the reach of controversy. But all ' 


these indications fail us in the Fourth Gospel. The style, 
as we have seen, is not constructed upon Greek models. If 
we except a few lines of the Proem, the thought moves 
throughout in a wholly different region, and the characteristic 
problems of Greek philosophy are passed by in silence. With ; 
the exception of the word λόγος the terminology of the 
schools is absent; and λόγος is a term which is found ἴῃς 


the LXX. If we take only the designations of the supreme ἣ 


Being, and compare their paucity and simplicity with the : 
rich variety and philosophical flavour of those used by Philo, 


we must be struck with the difference. This difference is 


all-pervading. If we omit the first few verses, I cannot 


recall to mind a single passage where the mode of expression - 


even suggests the thought that the writer must have been 
reading Greek philosophy. It is needless to say that direct 
allusions and quotations are entirely wanting. Where, then, 
is the evidence of Greek philosophical training? Simply in 
the theory which is sketched in such broad outlines in the 
Proem, and in the doctrine of the Logos, which contains some 
Stoical elements, but has not a trace of the characteristic 
Stoical vocabulary. This seems to point to a man who had 
been without philosophical training, but through the necessities 
of his position had been brought into living contact with the 
1 Article, Ὁ. 409. 


4 DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 419 
᾿ 

_ problems of his time, and under the impulse of spiritual 
i _ genius had struck out some grand lines of thought, which 
" might be afterwards developed into a philosophy. This 


latter process had already begun in the time of Justin the 


_ philosopher and martyr, whose philosophical training is mani- 
‘ fest, and who tries to throw around the soaring ideas of 
r inspiration the network of philosophy, and force them into 
_ the cage of scholastic dogma. But the writer of the Gospel 
follows a different method. He does not define, and elaborate, 
_ and prove by a disciplined dialectic, but places before us, as 
_ it were, a series of spiritual pictures, which every man may 
interpret according to the measure of soul which is in him. 
In the doctrine of the Logos he seems to place himself between 
_ Jews and Greeks, and to appropriate a common term as the 
expression of a uniting faith. It is as though he said, You 
Greeks behold in Christ the consummate Reason, that Reason 
_ of which I have so often heard you speak, which dwells 
eternally with God, and in which you have seen the divine 
basis of the universe and the indwelling light of man; you 
Jews behold in him that Word of God which spake to your 
_ fathers, and was handed down in your Scriptures, but for 
you who believe is no longer inscribed in tables of stone or 
of parchment, but of flesh. If we combine with these con- 
_ siderations the evidence of the author’s Judaic training, on 
which we have already dwelt, I think we shall see that the 
book itself points to a Palestinian Jew who in later life was 
brought into some sort of loose contact with current modes 
of thought among the Greeks. This is precisely what the 
traditional account would lead us to expect, and I am 
therefore unable to attach any more weight to this than to 
the other of the two arguments which alone, in Schiirer’s 
opinion, retain any validity. 


CHAPTER IV 


COULD THE PORTRAIT OF JESUS HAVE BEEN DRAWN BY A 
PERSONAL FRIEND ? 


It is affirmed with great confidence that the portrait of Jesus 
which is presented by the Gospel could not possibly have 
been drawn by a personal friend. Weizsacker regards this 
argument as decisive of the question. He compares the 
Gospel in this respect with the Apocalypse, and says that 
the division between the present view of the author and the 
actual intercourse with Jesus of Nazareth is no less than 
that between the seer and the Lamb or the dread form of the 
heavenly judge. That the Apostle, the beloved disciple, who 
lay beside Jesus at the table, should have represented his 
former experiences as intercourse with the divine Logos 
made flesh is a still greater riddle. No power of faith and 
of philosophy can be imagined sufficiently great to extinguish 
the recollection of the real life, and substitute for it this 
miraculous image of a divine being. In Paul, who never 
knew Jesus, it is intelligible; but in a primitive apostle it is 
unthinkable It is exceedingly difficult to form a just 
estimate of this argument; so much depends on the extent 
of our agreement with the author, on the interpretation of 
the book, and on our understanding of an oriental mind. 
For those who accept the whole work as strictly historical 
1 Das ap. Zett., p. 535 sq- 


420 


te 


NATURE OF THE BIOGRAPHY 421 


Ὶ the difficulty does not arise. From this point of view an 
_ apostle alone could give the needed attestation, and state 
_ with authority the fundamental doctrine of the Gospel of 

Christ. I have not been able, however, to adopt this 
: position. We have been compelled to admit that the book 
is rather an interpretation of the inward and essential mean- 
_ ing of Christ’s life than an exact delineation of its outward 
incidents; and therefore for us the question arises whether 
such an interpretation could have been given by one who 
had known Jesus as a man, and lived with him in the 
_ intimacy of friendship. A complete answer to this question 
could be reached only through the exegesis of the entire 
work, and therefore I must be content with some very 
general remarks. It seems to me that the individuality of 
the writer, whoever he may have been, is so peculiar that we 
cannot apply to him criteria of probability which would be 
suitable enough for an ordinary Englishman or German of 
modern times. He certainly has not strung together a 
number of gossiping reminiscences in order to gratify our 
curiosity. There is a sort of remote and solitary greatness 
about the principal figure, which does not suggest the 
familiar companion, or allow us to see what I may call the 
every-day personality of Jesus. But this is only saying 
that the personality of Jesus was transcendent and unique 
in the experience of the writer, and that the little bio- 
graphical details which bring men closer to us, and make 
them live in the imagination, were swallowed up in the 
religious significance of his person and his work. Have we 
not all met men with whom none but a coxcomb would take 
liberties, owing to the inherent dignity and power which 
obviously belonged to them, and can we not believe that the 
devout and mystic mind of an oriental, who had found in 
Jesus the secret of eternal life, and had pondered for fifty 


im ie 
422 PORTRAIT NOT DRAWN BY A FRIEND 


ὃ 


᾿ 


years on the source and meaning of that life, might be so ἣ 


absorbed in the moral and spiritual impression as to have — 


a reverent shrinking from dwelling on those traits in his — 


Master which would seem to ally him with ordinary 
humanity? If it be said that this might be so, but that the 


disciple could not think of the dear friend and teacher, with 


whom he had walked and talked, as a divine being from 
another sphere, as not strictly a man at all, but as a mani- 
fested God, I can only reply at present that I cannot so 
interpret his thought. The humanity of Jesus is not for- 
gotten. Heis the Son of man. His body is not a phantasm, 
but composed of flesh, from which, when wounded, blood and 
water flow forth. He is tired with a journey, and sits down 
to rest himself.1. He weeps.2. His soul is troubled? He is 
troubled in spirit.* He has a cup (of suffering) to drink.® 
But it is still more important to observe that his spiritual 
being is represented as absolutely dependent on God. He is 
sent by God.° He describes himself as “a man’ who has 
spoken to you the truth which I heard from God”®; “the 
things which I speak, therefore, as the Father has said to 
me, so I speak”; “all things that I heard from my Father 
I made known to you.” He acted and spoke by command- 
ment of his Father, and he continued in his Father’s love 
because he kept his commandments." He did nothing from 
himself, and the Father left him not alone, because he did 
always the things that pleased him.” All this implies that 
it was as man that he listened to the voice of God, and 
reverently obeyed it; and it may remind us of what 
Xenophon said from a lower plane of religious life, that 


t ‘iv, 6. Pe ae: ΧΙ ΣΝ ΞΧΠΥ 2s, 
δ Xvid, Τ 6 Passim, 7 ἄνθρωπος. 8 viii. 40. 
Ot.) ee 10 xv. 15. See also viii, 26, 28, 38. 


τ χ 18, Xi. 4G, Xiv. 31,, XV. ΤῸ, and cf. ἔν. 594: 
12. vill. 28 sq Cf. v. 30. 


HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS 423 


Ὁ 
Bvccrates “did nothing without the judgment of the Gods.” 1 
᾿ Accordingly, Jesus offers prayer, the act of communion 
between the finite and the infinite. It is owing to the 
: Father that he lives? His judgment is just because he 
ἢ seeks not his own will, but the will of the Father? He and 
} God are repeatedly spoken of as though they were quite dis- 
tinct: for instance, faith in him is to be superadded to faith 
in God‘; in him, as the Son of man, God is glorified,> with 
which we may compare what Paul says of himself, “they 
glorified God in me.”® To this we must add the emphatic 
declaration that the Father is the only real God.’ So far, 
then, we have the picture of a profoundly religious and 
devoted man, such as a loving friend might undoubtedly 
draw ; and before we proceed to another aspect of the picture, 
we must observe that these features are not rare and 
accidental, but pervading and characteristic. 

Now it appears to me that the expressions which seem to 
convert Jesus into a superhuman being, and which we would 
not apply either to ourselves or to any of our friends, instead 
of being inconsistent with what has been just pointed out, 
inevitably flow from and complete it. The pathway to the 
highest communion with God is through the lowliest self- 
surrender and submission; and he who speaks only what he 
hears from the Father, and does only what the Father com- 
mands, will become so pure an organ of the eternal Spirit 
that in seeing him we shall see the Father. He and the 
Father will be one, not from any independent and underived 
greatness, not because they are co-equal, but because the 
selfish and personal life is lost in the Divine. If we are not 
too dull spiritually to feel the possibility of this, to discern 

1 ἄνευ τῆς τῶν θεῶν γνώμης. Memor., IV. vill. 11. 


ews 57. a Po 8 ΘΈΣΙΝ: Ἢ: 
5 xill. 31 sq. 6 -Gal. 1, 24. T evi 3. (Of. v.44 WR 2h 


424 PORTRAIT NOT DRAWN BY A FRIEND 


it indeed within ourselves as the ideal of sonship, however 
obscure and distorted by the clinging remnants of passion 


and self-will, can we not imagine that to the deep, searching, — 
dissatisfied soul of the young Apostle Jesus had become the ~ 
central revelation of God, of nature, and of man, and that, 


᾿ 
A 


se ures 


as he looked back upon the days of dear intimacy with the ~ 


friend whom the Jews had crucified, he remembered how the — 


words of the teacher used to thrill through him, and carry © 
him heavenward, till he seemed to stand in the very presence ~ 


of the Father? Adversaries did not perceive this, because — 


their eyes were blind, and their ears stopped, and their heart 
hard; and even apostles, like Philip, had been strangely in 


the dark, and thought that the Father could be shown other- — 
wise than in the spirit of a surrendered life. But love, which 


had experienced the birth from above, pierced the transparent — 


veil of the flesh, and recognised the universal and redeeming 
love of the Father glowing in word and deed. Greatness, 
evoked by a higher greatness, understood, and bowed before 
that heavenly power, knowing whence it came, and refused 
to reduce to the level of mere human opinion that which 
broke up, as with the voice of God, the deeps of everlasting 
life within the soul. In all this there is nothing that goes 
beyond the possibilities of friendship, unless we are deter- 
mined to bring John down to the level of the populace at 


Nazareth, who thought that there could not be anything 


unusual in Jesus, because he had a father and mother, and 
brothers and sisters, like any ordinary mortal. But what if 
it be one of the gifts of genius to pass behind the sordid 
drapery of things, and discern their divine meaning and 
power? If this was the case with John, may not the 
bereaved disciple have felt that Jesus came spiritually with 
the Father to dwell in his otherwise desolate heart, that he 
was henceforth the way, the truth, and the life, and that in 


him might be seen, full of grace and truth, the sum of that 
eternal Reason of which philosophy had gained but a partial 


4 JESUS REGARDED AS THE MESSIAH 425 
Ἢ 


vision, of that Word of God which had come to ancient 
prophets with intimations of a glory to be revealed, and 
which Rabbis had turned into a hard and deadening rule? 
To these more general considerations we must add the fact, 
which will not be denied, that the immediate disciples of 
Jesus regarded him as the Messiah, and therefore believed 
him to be a solitary man among men, sent by God on a 
unique mission, and, for the purposes of that mission, clothed 
with unique powers. His sharing this belief, therefore, does 
not remove the author of the Gospel from the circle of 
personal friends. The Messiahship of Jesus, however exalted 
and spiritualised, pervades the teaching of the book; and it 
provides a basis for further development and interpretation, 
and may have contributed to the unfolding of those higher 
views on which we have already dwelt. I am obliged, then, 
to dismiss this objection as founded to a large extent on a 
misunderstanding, both of the work and of its author." 
1 Xenophon could not speak from the religious height of the evangelist, 
but I cannot help quoting once more his touching words, as affording at 
least a distant parallel to the sentiment of a writer who had the imagination 
of an oriental, and the love of one who had found through agony the peace 
of an assured faith :—rav δὲ Σωκράτην γιγνωσκόντων, οἷος ἦν, of ἀρετῆς 
ἐφιέμενοι πάντες ἔτι καὶ viv διατελοῦσι πάντων μάλιστα ποθοῦντες ἐκεῖνον, ὡς 


ὠφελιμώτατον ὄντα πρὺς ἀρετῆς ἐπιμελείαν. Ἐμοὶ μὲν 5)... - ἐδόκει τοιοῦτος 
εἶναι, οἷος ἂν εἴη ἄριστός τε ἀνὴρ καὶ εὐδαιμονέστατος. Mem., Iv. Vili. 11. 


CHAPTER V 
THE UNHISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE BOOK 


WE come now to what has always appeared to me the most f 
formidable argument against the Johannine authorship, and ἢ 
one which I think has been in reality the most largely 
operative, though it has not played a very prominent part 
in the controversy; I mean the unhistorical character of | 
the book. It seems to be assumed on both sides that, if} 
John be the author, then the Gospel must be the most 
authentic life of Jesus which we possess; and while it is 
contended on one side that, beingJohn’s, it must be strictly 
historical, it is taken for granted on the other that, not being 
historical, it cannot be John’s. This, then, is the alternative 
which we have to consider from the point of view of those 
who recognise in the Gospel the presence of a large ideal or 
allegorical element. Those who see in it nothing but pure} 
history cannot feel the pressure of this argument, and I do 
not wonder that they look upon the Johannine authorship 
as irrefragably established. I am unable, however, to accept 
this position. In our preliminary survey we saw critical 
reasons for doubting the accuracy of the narrative in several 
particulars; and I must frankly add that, on general grounds 
affecting the whole question of the miraculous, I am unable 
to believe that such miracles as the turning of water into 


wine and the raising of Lazarus were really performed. We 
426 


NATURE OF MEMORY 427 


must add that the inaccuracies, if they are such, are not of 
the kind that can be easily set down to failure of memory. 
There is such a thing as misremembering; and it is even 
possible for a man to feel sure that he remembers having 
been present at a scene that took place many years before, 
when, in fact, he was not there, but had only heard an 
account of what occurred, and then, in the lapse of time, 
had changed what he was told into a personal experience. 
We may easily suppose that the author of the Gospel had 
‘a memory which could be guilty of such lapses, and that the 
vividness with which he pictured things in his imagination 
may have sometimes led him to change his visions into 
tealities. This might account for considerable inaccuracy 
of detail, but hardly for the extensive reconstruction of the 
history which the Gospel exhibits. I cannot believe that 
any trick of memory could lead a man to believe that the 


raising of Lazarus had taken place if nothing of the sort 
had really occurred. We are therefore thrown back on the 
hypothesis of a deliberate construction of narrative as a 
pictorial embodiment of spiritual truth. I need not repeat 
what was said in the early part of this work about ancient 
views of history, and the traces of an original belief that 
the Gospel was theological and allegorical rather than his- 
torical; but I may venture on two further observations. 
First, many things in the thought and character of Jesus 
may have become plain to the Apostle after the decease of the 
former; and as he looked back, and pondered on the lesson of 
that wonderful life, he may have come to care less and less 
for the mere outward incidents, and more and more for the 
inward meaning and power of the total manifestation. Jesus 
seemed still to come, and make his abode in the bereaved heart 
of the disciple? At the hour of his departure he had still 


1 xiv. 23. 


428 GOSPEL UNHISTORICAL 


had many things to say, but had left them to the revealing 
power of the spirit of truth! The disclosures of that spirit 
became part of the teaching and revelation of Christ, and the 
things which it spoke within the listening and reverent soul 
were only interpreting variations of what Christ had said and 
done on earth. John may therefore have determined to write 
a life in which, disregarding the bodily things as already 
sufficiently provided for, he could set forth spiritually what 
the Messiah and Son of God had become to him. This view 
does not preclude the possibility, or even probability, that 
much genuine history is mingled with the narrative, and I am 
very far from supposing that the whole is a tissue of allegories, 
on the model of Philo’s interpretations of the Old Testament. 
The lessons are spiritual, not philosophical, and are conveyed 
through the whole impression of a narrative, and not through 
particular phrases, names, and incidents. Further, if this view 
leaves some of the outward things in a state of uncertainty, 
it represents the work as a genuine reminiscence and descrip- 
tion of the impression which Jesus made upon a man who was 
susceptible of soul-stirring experiences, and characterized by 
a singular depth and delicacy of spiritual discernment. If we 
do not learn from him the very words which Jesus spoke, we 
learn what he said to a sensitive and loving heart. | 
Secondly, the difficulty is not much relieved by the sup- 
position of a later and unknown authorship, for in that case 
we must regard the Gospel as almost wholly an ideal repre- 
sentation. The stories are not like the last gleanings of oral 
tradition, which still remained after the synoptic group was 
completed ; for they are too definite in time, place, and cireum- 
stances, and above all in their intrinsic meaning and purpose, 
to be regarded as legends which the writer carelessly accepted 
as veritable history. We are therefore driven to the sup- 


2 Evi. ἈΣΤΩ͂Ν 


q OBJECTION NOT FATAL ἡδὺ 


position that the author deliberately departed from the current 
tradition, and, with full consciousness of what he was about, 
= his spiritual Gospel. Nevertheless we must suppose 
ἢ hat he wrote in all good faith, for the notion of imposture 
connection with such a work cannot be entertained. I 
cannot think that a man in the middle of the second century 
3 more likely to fulfil these conditions than an apostle. All 
depends on the idiosyncrasy of the man; and it is mere self- 
¢ eception to conjure up an unknown figure, and fancy that 
ν e escape from all difficulties by attributing to this whatever 
‘we please. It may be said indeed that one with a personal 
I nowledge of the facts would be less likely to introduce ideal 
narratives than one who knew them only by tradition. But 
thi sis by no means certain. The very form of the tradition 
‘must have been sacred to communities which based their life 
v pon it; and most men would hesitate long before departing 
fi om it, and, even if they wished to idealize, would bring their 
fresh narratives clearly within the accepted framework. On 
the hypothesis, then, of late authorship, the ideal character of 
the Gospel still presents a problem which requires substantially 
the same solution as is demanded if we accept its apostolic 


For these reasons I am unable to regard even a large 
admission of unhistorical elements as fatal to the traditional 
view. I do not pretend to have reached a solution which 
¢ isposes of all difficulties; but it is one to which the evidence, 
when fairly interpreted, seems to conduct, and which, so far 
as I can judge, is encumbered by fewer difficulties than other 
hypotheses. 


CHAPTER VI 


IGNORANCE OF PALESTINE AND JEWISH USAGES 


THE argument indicated by the above title must be noticed, 
although it has been abandoned by Schiirer, and was long 
ago declared even by Keim to be without validity By others 
it has been thought that the writer’s ignorance of Palestine 
and of Jewish usages is such as to prove that he was no 
native of the country. Dr Martineau relies upon this 
argument”; but he presents a very diminutive list of supposed 
errors, and we must therefore conclude that he has selected 
those on which alone he thinks reliance can be placed. 
Accordingly it will be sufficient if we attempt to estimate the 
strength of these. | 

First, he says, “no companion of Jesus could have placed 
the scene of the Baptist’s testimony to Jesus in ‘ Bethany 
beyond Jordan’—a place unknown to geography.” For 
“geography ” here we ought to substitute Origen, for it was 
he that made inquiries about the localities frequented by Jesus 
and his disciples, and assures us that there is no place of the 
name of Bethany in the neighbourhood of the Jordan; and he 
therefore decides, against the authority of almost all the 
manuscripts, and of Heracleon, in favour of a reading 
Bethabara.? This solution of the difficulty has not been 
accepted by later critics, and we must allow the reading 

1 Gesch. Jesu, i. p. 133- 2 Seat of Authority, p. 212. 


3 Com. in Joan., Tom. vi. 24, p. 237 sq.. Lom. 
430 


, BETHANY BEYOND JORDAN 431 


ἣν Bethany” to stand. Let us suppose, in the first place, that 
there is really an error; would this be fatal to the Johannine 
authorship? Is it impossible for a man to make a mistake 
about his own country? Is it impossible for his memory to 
: slip in recalling the name of a village or a district which he 
visited sixty years ago? I do not say that it is likely; but I 
think it is far less unlikely than that a writer who had got 
up his geography with the minute care displayed by the 
author of the Gospel, if he was a distant Greek, would have 
gratuitously burdened himself with the name of a place of 
which he had never heard. But in truth there is no need to 
“suppose an error. All we know is that two hundred years 
: after the event Origen was unable to find Bethany. Some 
have thought that the name may have been changed into 
Bethabara, both words having substantially the same meaning, 
the former “the house of a ship,” the latter “the house of 
“passage,” indicating a ferry. Lieutenant Conder thought it 
Ἶ referred to the well-known district of Batanea or Bashan, the 
name of which is still preserved in Ard el-Bethaniyeh+; and 
‘ ‘if this conjecture be correct, Origen no doubt made his inquiries 
Bona wrong basis. Another conjecture is that it 1s a corruption 
of Bethnimrah, mentioned in Joshua xii. 27, where there was 
3 an abundant supply of water. Furrer, again, discovers it in 
a ruined place named Betane, and in Betane recognises the 
Arabic form of Betonim, which is referred to in Joshua xiii. 
26. The irregular change of ¢ into th may have been 

“suggested by the resemblance to the familiar Bethany in the 
neighbourhood of Jerusalem. From this place to Cana of 
“Galilee is a journey of twenty hours. Again, it is quite 


1 Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund, October 1877, 
Pp. 184 844. 

| 2 Encyclo. Bibl. 

: 3 “Das Geographische im Evan. nach Johannes,” by K. Furrer, in the 
Leitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, p. 257 86. 


432 IGNORANCE OF PALESTINE 


conceivable that in the course of two centuries, in which 
Palestine was brought to utter political ruin, the little village ~ 
may have simply disappeared and been forgotten, or its : 
name may have been changed into another bearing no 
ΤΕ ΣΘΕΙΒΙΗΣΙΒΒ to the pezinal either in sound oe sense. Six or 


Dunleary, but it has long been known only as Kingstown, a : 
name which it received in 1821. The Rev. J. S. Porter tells” ἱ 
us that in the neighbourhood of Belfast, “if Lasnagarvey ἵ 
happened to be mentioned, perhaps not one person in five i 
hundred would know whereabouts it was situated; yet it is 
the only name by which, until the beginning of the last fi 
century, the large and flourishing town of Lisburn, within less ᾿ 
than eight miles of Belfast, was known.”! Another instance ~ 
is furnished by the town of Portarlington, which was formerly — 
Cootletoodra2 Changes of name are not without example — 
in Palestine. Bethsaida became Julias; Panium, Cesarea — 


Phillipi; Accho, Ptolemais. In the last two instances, how- j 
ever, the original name survived, with slight modifications, — 
proving how tenacious is an old and popular designation, so 
that it seems more likely that an obscure village disappeared 
than that it acquired a new name in the mouths of the — 
common people. But how many places have disappeared in — 
Palestine, and with what difficulty are once familiar sites being — 
identified by men who are far more skilled in exploration than 
Origen can have been? If eighteen centuries have destroyed so 
much, may not a ninth part of that time, not the least disastrous 
in the history of the country, have effaced one or two of the 
scenes clearly remembered by a disciple of Jesus? With these 
various possibilities before us I am unable to attach even an 
infinitesimal weight to this alleged ignorance of geography. | 


' The Fourth Gospel is the Gospel according to St. John, 1876, p. 23. 
2 Smiles, Huguenots, p. 383. 


ee ΑΝ 


SYCHAR: SEA OF GALILEE 433 


The objection derived from the mention of Sychar! is not 
now pressed. Socher or Sichra is referred to in the Talmud, 
and is now generally identified with the village of Askar, half 
a mile from Jacob’s well.” 

I may refer here to a supposed geographical error which 
has been pressed upon my attention. In vi. 1 the writer says, 
“after these things Jesus went away over the sea of Galilee.” ᾿ 
As the events in the previous chapter took place in Jerusalem, 
the author, it is inferred, must have imagined that the Galilean 
lake was close to the capital. This is a very improbable piece 


_ of ignorance even for a distant Greek writer; and if we 


believe that the writer was not ignorant, the brevity of the 
expression seems most natural in the case of a native who δά. 
lived upon the shores of the lake, and for whom the eastern 
side had always lain across the water. That the author was 


_ not ignorant we may infer not only from his general know- 
_ ledge of Palestine, but from the fact that he places Samaria 
_ between Judea and Galilee? that he is acquainted with the 
“mountain ” beside the lake, and is aware that the lake had to 
_ be re-crossed to reach Capernaum. We may also fairly plead 
_ that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the verse, and that μετὰ 
ταῦτα does not necessarily mean “the moment these things 


were over.” A return to Galilee may have been assumed by 


the writer as a matter of course. I am therefore unable to 
- take this objection very seriously.* 


Perhaps I ought to refer to a difficulty connected with the 


Riv. 5 
2 See Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix xv., 


vol. ii. p. 764. See also an article by Professor George Adam Smith in 


the Expositor for 1892, vol. vi. pp. 464-472. He accepts the identification 


_ with ’Askar, and considers the arguments for and against it. 


= iv. 3, 4. 
4 If we may suppose that chapters v. and vi. have been transposed, the 


_ difficulty, such as it is, disappears. 


ee 


28 


434 IGNORANCE OF JEWISH USAGES 


mention of “ Bethsaida of Galilee.”! The only Bethsaida that 
is known was not in Galilee, but just across the border; and 
it is sometimes supposed that there must have been also a 
Galilean town of the same name, or that the writer is 
inaccurate, and betrays his late date. The true explanation 
probably is that, at least by the time of the Jewish war, the 
name “Galilee” was used rather loosely. Thus Josephus calls 
Judas who raised the revolt against the Census “a Gaulonite,” 
and a few sections further on “the Galilean.” 2 

The next instance of alleged ignorance is that the writer 
has “invested Annas as well as Caiaphas with the prerogatives 
of high priest,” a statement which is explained in a note 
by a reference to John xviii. 19, 22, 24, “ Annas therefore sent 
him (not ‘had sent him’) bound to Caiaphas the high priest.” 
If all the difficulties were removed from this passage by 


assuming that “the high priest” in verses 19 and 22 referred ~ 


to Annas, we should have to consider whether such a use of q 
language was possible to a native of Galilee. Annas had 
been high priest, and five of his sons rose to the same dignity? 
Caiaphas, who filled the office from 25 to 36 A.D. is said by 
the evangelist to have been the son-in-law of Annas, and I am 
not aware that there is any reason for doubting the assertion. 
At all events we may judge from Luke iii. 2 and Acts iv. 6 
that the two men were closely united, and that Annas retained 
such ascendancy that a non-Palestinian writer could give him 
precedence over Caiaphas, and even describe him as the high 
priest. It may be, then, that his was really the governing 
mind, and that in popular use he retained his title. Τῇ, 
therefore, the evangelist really applied the term high priest 
to Annas, it would not necessarily prove that he was a 


eh ey | 
2 Ant., XVII. i. 1,6. See also xx. v. 2; B.J., ἅτ Viii. 1. 
* Josephus, Ant., xx. ix. 1, + Josephus, Ant., XVIII. 11. 2, iv. 3. 


HIGH PRIESTS , 435 


foreigner; and I see nothing incredible in the supposition 
that Annas took a prominent part in bringing about the arrest 
of Jesus, and that he was the first to see and examine him 
privately, while the superintendence of the proceedings before 
the Sanhedrim properly devolved on Caiaphas. I cannot, 
however, persuade myself that anyone but Caiaphas is meant 
by “the high priest.” The writer, in common with the other 


“evangelists, uses ἀρχιερεῖς to denote the leading priests!; but 


there is no appearance of his applying the word in the 
singular to more than one man. In xi. 49 and 51 he says 
that Caiaphas was high priest that year. The word here, 
being a predicate, has not the article, and Caiaphas is intro- 
duced as “one of them,” that is, one of the apxepets; but still 
it is clear that he is singled out as holding a pre-eminent 
office, which enabled him, though without understanding 
what he said, to utter words of prophecy. We hear next of 
“the servant of the high priest,’? and, as there is nothing to 
indicate what high priest is meant, it is obvious that the well- 
known head of the Jewish priesthood must be intended. 
Three verses further on we are again told that Caiaphas was 
high priest that year; and accordingly, in the following 
verses, 15, 16, 19, 22, “the high priest” can only mean 
Caiaphas, and especially as we are once more reminded in 
24 that he was “the high priest.” “The high priest,” two 
verses further on, must surely be the same; and this con- 
firms the previous conclusion that “the palace of the high 
priest ὃ visited by Peter and the other disciple belonged to 
Caiaphas, and not to Annas. All this would be beyond 

1 vii. 32, 45, xi. 47, etc. According to Schiirer, the term applied only 
to ‘those who actually held, or had held, the high-priestly office, together 
with the members of the few prominent families from which the high 
priests still continued to be selected.” Thayer, in Grimm’s Lexicon of the 


New Testament. 
2 xviii. Io. me gti See 


436 IGNORANCE OF JEWISH USAGES 


question if it were not for verse 24, which introduces such 
confusion into the whole narrative as to suggest heroic 
remedies, the removal of the verse as a gloss,! its transposition 
and insertion between 13 and 14,2) or giving a pluperfect 
meaning to the aorist.2 We need not at present discuss 
these suggestions; for I cannot admit that the unexpected 
statement in this verse is to upset the plain interpretation of 
what has gone before and what follows. The difficulty is 
not connected with any presumed authorship, but is inherent 
in the structure of the narrative itself, and would be pre- 
cisely the same if the work had been composed in the tenth 
century instead of the first. For these reasons, then, I think 
this objection too must be dismissed. 


1 Recently by Bousset, who would also remove ἀπὸ τοῦ Καιάφα from 
verse 28 (Theol. Literaturz., 1903, No. 6, col. 165). 

2 This is actually effected in the Sinaitic Syriac. Verses 16-18, 
containing the first part of the account of Peter’s denial, are also 
transposed, and inserted between 23 and 25. The whole narrative thus 
gains in coherence, and the difficulty about the high priest vanishes. 


Syr™™, in verse 13, omits ἦν γὰρ πενθερὸς τοῦ Καϊάφα, and the margin 


inserts, in place of these words, e Annas mistt Ieswm ad Caiapham. 
Syr’™s, after ἐκείνου, inserts misit ewm igitur Annas vinctum ad Caiapham. 
Similarly Cyr*11, Codex 225 inserts the words after πρῶτον. (See Tisch., 
an loco.) 

8 For this we may compare Matthew xxvi. 48 (which has the aorist 
apparently in a pluperfect sense) with Mark xiv. 44, where the pluperfect 
is used. A similar remark applies to Matthew xxvii. 18 compared with 
Mark xv. 10. In John iv. 45 ἦλθον has a pluperfect sense. There is a 
pretty close parallel in the use of the aorist in Iliad, i. 12, ὃ yap ἦλθε θοὰς 
ἐπὶ νῆας ᾿Αχαιῶν, where the time of ἦλθε is earlier than that of the preceding 
statement, νοῦσον ἀνὰ στρατὸν ὦρσε κακήν. We may also see Plato’s 
Symposium, 203 B, ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐδείπνησαν ... . ἀφίκετο ἡ πενία, compared 
with 217 D, ἐπειδὴ ἐδεδειπνήκει, διελεγόμην. We should observe that the 
reading in John is doubtful. Tischendorf and W. H. read ἀπέστειλεν οὖν ; 
but several authorities read δέ, and several more omit the connecting 
particle altogether. 1 think we can easily explain the insertion of a word 
by copyists ; but if we omit it, the verse becomes simply a note, and its 
time need not be in any way determined by what precedes. The allusion 
to this indignity might be suggested by the statement just made, that one 
of the servants had struck Jesus. 


ee οος- 


SN a eee 
7 x ὄν 


—— 
σ᾿ — oe wo 
77 


HIGH PRIEST'S OFFICE ANNUAL 437 


The next objection is that an apostle would not “have 
represented that office [the office of high priest] as annual.” 
This statement is supported, without discussion, by referring 
to xi. 49, 51, Xvill. 13, where it is said that Caiaphas was 
ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου. Dr Martineau adds in a note, 
“H. Holtzmann attributes this mistake to the author’s 
familiarity with the practice in Asia Minor of annually 
changing the high-priest of the new temple dedicated to the 


worship of the Emperor, the year being called by his name. 


Lehrb. d. Einlettung wm die N. T. 469 (2te Aufi.).” Dr 
Martineau here assumes that the prima facie interpretation of 
the evangelist’s words is necessarily the true one, and gives no 
hint that another view is possible. Nevertheless many able 
commentators think that the words do not refer to a 
supposed annual tenure of office, but to the fact that “that 
year” stood out in John’s memory as the one decisive year in 
his own and the world’s history.1. It is pointed out that even 
a Gentile who had made himself so well acquainted as the 
evangelist proves himself to have been with Jewish affairs 
could not have fallen into such a mistake as is alleged” I 
may add that the threefold repetition of the words, which is 
quite unnecessary, seems to give them a certain solemnity, as 
though they indicated something of higher importance than 
an annual change of office. Alford objects that they cannot 
mean “‘in that remarkable year, as we have no instance of 
time being so specified,” and he would therefore refer them 
to “some official distinction from Annas (the High Priest de 


1 See Liicke, De Wette, Meyer, Westcott. 

2 The author of the Paschal Chronicle, however, has not escaped this 
error. He assures us, ἐνιαύσιος δὲ 6 τῆς ἑκάστου ἀρχιερωσύνης ἣν χρόνος, and 
founds on this supposed fact a futile argument as to the duration of Christ’s 
ministry (i. p. 417 sq.). The cases, considering the centuries of changing 
circumstances that elapsed between the two writers, can hardly be considered 
parallel. 


438 IGNORANCE OF JEWISH USAGES 


jure), the exact nature of which is lost to us.” This unusual 
employment of ἐνιαυτός, however, might be explained as an 
allusion to the ἐνιαυτὸν Κυρίου δεκτόν of Isaiah 1xi. 2, which, in 
Luke iv. 19, is applied to the year of salvation, and which 
afterwards became an accepted description of the period of 
Christ’s ministry. This suggestion receives some confirma- 
tion from the fact that it is only in this phrase that John 
uses ἐνιαυτός, and elsewhere prefers ἔτη As evidence that 
this view is not a mere apologetic evasion, invented as a 
reply to modern criticism, I may mention that Origen takes 
no notice of the difficulty about the tenure of the high priest’s 
office, and therefore presumably did not interpret the words 
in the way which modern criticism demands; but he does 
explain “that year” as the one “when our Saviour completed 
the economy in suffering for men.”? He points out that 
circumstance was sometimes the cause of prophecy, and so it 
was with Caiaphas; his temporary gift was due to “his 
being high priest that year in which Jesus was going to die 
for the people, that the whole nation perish not; for of other 
high priests ... none prophesies, but only the high priest 
of the year in which Jesus was going to suffer.”* If the 
language of the Gospel had been equally full, and the words 
had been, “Caiaphas was high priest in the year in which 
Jesus was crucified,” no difficulty would have been felt. The 
unusual form of expression, if we are to give it that inter- 
pretation, may be explained by the keenness with which that 
particular year was impressed on the disciple’s memory; and 
we may add to our reference to “the acceptable year of the 
Lord” the fact that the year was marked by the recurring 
Passover, and that the high priest, although he did not hold 


LL 20, Wi Savills 57. 2 Com. in Joan., Tom. xxviii. 12, p. 337. 
3 Ib. 15, p. 357 sq. Similarly Origen speaks of “that year” in Hom. in 
Levit., ix. 5, p. 351. 


1 


: 


NO PROPHET FROM GALILEE 439 


an annual office, nevertheless discharged annual functions. 
Although, therefore, the interpretation which Dr Martineau 
puts upon the phrase is the one which most readily suggests 
itself, it is by no means certain that it is correct, and, while 
admitting that it creates some difficulty, I do not think it can 
counterbalance the mass of evidence which has been produced 
of the writer’s familiarity with Jewish affairs, or prove that 
his knowledge was that of a Greek antiquarian, and not of a 
native Jew. } 

Again, it is said that a companion of Jesus would not 
“have so forgotten Elijah and Nahum as to make the 
Pharisees assert that ‘out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,’ ” the 
references in a note being John vii. 52, 1 Kings xvii. 1, Nahum 
1.1. Itis admitted that there is some error in the statement 
here ascribed to the Pharisees; but commentators seem 
strangely divided as to the precise nature and extent of the 
error. Elijah, we are told in the verse appealed to, belonged 
to Gilead, not to Galilee. Nahum was from Elkosh, which, 
according to Hieronymus, was in Galilee, but is placed by 
others in Assyria.!. Dr Martineau’s two instances, therefore, 
are at least doubtful; but Jonah, whom he does not mention, 
was confessedly from Galilee,” for we are told in 2 Kings xiv. 
25 that he was of Gath-hepher. The derivation of the 
prophets from Galilee would appear, then, not to be a very 
obvious fact, or one which might not be overlooked even by a 
careful reader of the Scriptures. It is conceivable, as has 
been suggested, on the assumption that we have here an 
accurate report, that the Pharisees were hurried by polemic 


1 See Liicke and Meyer. 

2 This has not escaped the notice of Bretschneider (Prob., p.g9). He 
suggests that the difficulty has induced transcribers to change ἐγήγερται 
into éyelperar. The change certainly lessens, if indeed it does not entirely 
remove, the force of the objection ; but the weight of the authorities for 
the latter reading is too great to be resisted. 


440 IGNORANCE OF THE SCRIPTURES 


zeal into a rash statement which could not stand the severe 
scrutiny of Bretschneider. But as critics ascribe the error, 
not to the Pharisees, but to the evangelist, we have to 
consider whether it is one which an apostle was likely to 
make. For my part, I can see no improbability in the 
supposition that he made a slip of so venial a kind. We are 
told in Acts iv. 13 that Peter and John were unlearned and 
ignorant men'; and it is surely possible that such men might 
have overlooked a fact which is by no means apparent on the 
surface of the Scriptures. How many unlearned and ignorant 
Englishmen could tell whether a great statesman had ever 
arisen out of Northumberland? A Galilean, accustomed to 
the scorn with which the men of the North were treated by 
the Rabbis of the metropolis, might very well put such a 
sentiment into their mouths. A Greek, on the other hand, 
would hardly have thought of such an objection, and, if he 
had thought of it, would have taken pains to ascertain 
whether there was anything in it. I am therefore inclined 
to think that the error, such as it is, was more likely to be 
committed by a native than by a foreigner. 


1 ἀγράμματοι καὶ ἰδιῶται. 


CHAPTER VII 


THE OBJECTION FROM THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCALYPSE 


net oo a ARRIGO chapter in seas controversy was 


‘were so contrasted in style and in thought as to betray 
r iversity of authorship; and this was put forward with such 
confidence as an unimpeachable critical canon that any one 
who hesitated to accept it was supposed to be sunk in a mere 
slough of orthodox prejudice. So far as we know, this 
argument was first used by Dionysius of Alexandria, who, 
2 ssuming the apostolic authorship of the Gospel to be beyond 
dispute, denied in consequence that of the Apocalypse. In 
odern times the order of his inference has been reversed. 
ti has been maintained that the Apocalypse is indubitably 
authentic, being one of the best attested books in the New 
‘Testament, and being sufficiently narrow and Judaic to be 
worthy of one of the most intimate of Christ’s disciples. On 
tie other hand many who were just as competent and truth- 
oving as their opponents found this reasoning unsatisfactory. 
{Some accepted the Johannine authorship of both works, and 
‘though not blind to differences between them, thought that 
Ἷ these had been exaggerated, and were not more than might be 
accounted for by diversity of subject and distance in the 


442 AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCALYPSE 


times of composition, while many resemblances lent confir-§ 
mation to the traditional view.1 Others denied the genuine 
ness of the Apocalypse, and tried to show that the externa 
evidence in its favour was by no means so strong as that b 
which the authorship of the Gospel was guaranteed. Thes 
various opinions open a large field of inquiry; but we nee 
not enter on it just now, for “critics” seem to have abandone 
this line of argument, and to have made up their minds tha 
the Apostle had nothing to do with either one book or th 
other. What seems to me the most important question at 
present turns on the value of external evidence. Though I 
do not think that the Apocalypse is so strongly attested as 
the Gospel, nevertheless I think the testimonies are very 
strong, and would be admitted to be so in any ordinary dis- 
cussion in the domain of general literature. If, then, it could 
be proved that the Apostle had no connection with the 
Apocalypse, although the famous argument against the 
genuineness of the Gospel would be thereby destroyed, yet 
at the same time the value of the external evidence would be 
impaired. We here meet with a problem which can be solved 
only by a complete introduction to the Apocalypse; and that 
involves a task on which we cannot now enter.? I will only 
say for myself that, while I have experienced a difficulty, on 
internal grounds, in ascribing the Apocalypse to the Apostle, 


1 See a good summary of this position in Dr Salmon’s Introduction. 

* There is an admirable account of different theories regarding the origin 
and composition of the Apocalypse, and a clear statement and estimate of 
results, by Professor George A. Barton, in an article on “The Apocalypse 
and Recent Criticism,” in the American Journal of Theology, October 1898. 
The weight of the external evidence in favour of the Apocalypse is hardly 
affected by the statement of Jerome, in a recently recovered homily, that 
Polycarp received the work ; for he does not tell us his authority for this 
statement, and he places Polycarp between Irenzeus, who accepted, and 
Dionysius, who rejected, the Johannine authorship of Revelation, while 
both alike accepted its canonicity. See Anecdota Maredsolana, vol. iii. 
Pars. ii., ed. Germanus Morin, 1897 ; Tractatus de Psalmo, i. pp. 5 89. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCALYPSE 443 


. have never been convinced that two extremely dissimilar 
Jworks might not proceed from the same author, and I have 
elt that in the midst of such wide differences there are 
urious reminders of the language and thought of the 
pvangelist; and perhaps the somewhat conflicting evidence 
might be explained by the supposition that the author, 
7 ile describing his own visions, used and worked up for 
(Christian purposes some earlier apocalyptic writing or 
: The question of the Apocalypse is far from 
settled; and while it is still sub judice we must judge 
% the Gospel upon its own merits. If we test the external 
evidence with all caution, and think that it possesses a 
a asonable strength, and if we then find it confirmed by 
the internal evidence, and not seriously shaken by counter- 
xiticism, we must accept it as genuine, at least till some 
new evidence, whether arising from the Apocalypse or from 
any other source, demands a reversal of our judgment. 


CHAPTER VIII 


THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 1 


WE come now to an argument which was at one time}; 
advanced as a conclusive demonstration that the Fourth}; 
Gospel could not have proceeded from the Apostle John,|/ 
which is now abandoned as delusive even by some of those} 
who reject the Johannine authorship, but which Dr Martineau } 
has pressed with undoubting confidence in his final work, 
The Seat of Authority in Religion. His judgment gives ἃ ἢ 
new vitality and interest to the question, which more than } 
justifies a full examination of the evidence. The attractive- 
ness of the subject, moreover, is by no means confined to its 
bearing on the Gospel, but extends to the history of an 
ancient controversy and the growth of discipline in the 
Church, so that the historian and antiquarian as well as the 
critic may find something congenial in its treatment. | 

The argument as it affects the Gospel may be stated as | 
follows: The Synoptic Gospels contain the primitive apostolic — 
tradition, and they concur in the statement that Jesus partook 
of the regular Jewish Passover on the evening of the four- 
teenth of Nisan (that is according to our mode of reckoning 
days, for with the Jews the evening was the beginning of 
the fifteenth), and consequently represent the crucifixion 

1 This chapter originally appeared in the American Journal of Theology, 


July 1897. It now contains some slight additions. 
444 


STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT 445 


jas taking place after the Passover had been eaten. The 
[Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, places the Last Supper on 
|the evening of the thirteenth, and the crucifixion on the 
fe urteenth, before the Passover was eaten It might be 
jurged, at this point, that as the last Gospel is at variance 
}with the primitive apostolic tradition, and as John was one 
of the two disciples who were sent to prepare for the 
Passover,” the claim of Johannine authorship becomes quite 
jinadmissible. This, however, is only a particular instance 
jof the larger argument founded on the unhistorial character 
οὗ the work, and it is one of the instances in which the 
accuracy of the Fourth Gospel may be most plausibly defended. 
|The present contention is of a different kind. The churches 
fof the province of Asia, and some of the adjoining districts, 
|celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day of the month at the 
time when the Jews kept the Passover, and in defence of 
this custom they appealed to an ancient usage which had 
been sanctioned by the Apostle John. It is maintained that 
Ithis celebration must have been an annual commemoration 
of the Lord’s Supper; that therefore John must have placed 
the Last Supper on the fourteenth, and cannot be the author 
‘of the Gospel. If these points could be all established, the 
argument would certainly seem to be conclusive. A curious 
modification, however, which makes the argument much less 
telling, is introduced when it is denied that John was ever in 
Asia Minor at all, for then the Asiatic usage is severed from 
all connection with him, and he may have written the Gospel 
which opposed that usage. The only thing that can be said 
in this case is that the Gospel, being in conflict with the 
practice of the Asiatic churches, cannot have been received 
by them as a work of the Apostle’s. This last position has 


1 See the discussion of this question in Book I., Chapter IV. 
2 Luke xxii. 8. 


446, PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


not, outside of the present argument, a particle of evidence 

but if it could be established, the reply might fairly be made 
that they rejected it on dogmatic grounds, and because it was 
not written by a man that they foolishly confounded with 
the Apostle, and that therefore their scepticism could not be) 
set against the belief of the rest of Christendom. To maintain 
at the same time that the Asiatics had a correct tradition and 
impression of John’s Judaic tendencies, and that all other 
traditions related to a man who was not the real John, is. 
obviously absurd. We may, accordingly, confine ourselves 
to the most telling and consistent form of the argument; and 
as the whole question is one of considerable interest, I will 
go a little more into detail than the simple purpose of 

refutation requires. 

Before entering on an account of the early controversy, I 
may venture to remark that the very confidence with which 
the argument is pressed excites a preliminary suspicion that 
there must be a flaw in it, because it would legitimately lead 
to consequences which are quite contrary to the fact. Mr 
Tayler, for instance, says: “The Gospel which we find in 
general circulation under the name of John before the close 
of the second century contains statements respecting the 
Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples so entirely at variance 
with the belief on which the Quartodecimans, as their very 
name implies, founded their practice, that, had they recognized 
it as a work of John, it is impossible they could have 
appealed in their defence to his sanction. What is more 
remarkable still, those who were opposed to Quartodeciman 
usage, and wished to enforce a catholic uniformity through- 
out the church, never once thought of appealing in the earlier 
stages of the controversy to the statement in the Fourth 
Gospel which was decidedly in their favour. A word from 
one standing in so close a relation to Jesus as the beloved — 


a Σ μνυν.. ..... 


HISTORICAL SKETCH ἜΜ. 


Apostle would have settled the question for ever. Yet not 
ill quite the end of the second century do we find the 
name of John adduced to support the catholic view.”! The 
eader naturally asks, Then why did not the appeal to the 
ourth Gospel settle the question forever? The objectionable 
practice and the controversy continued for more than a 
century after the word was spoken by one who was believed 
to be the beloved Apostle, and the dispute was settled at 
last by an appeal, not to John, but to Constantine. Yet the 
Asiatics were never charged with holding false views in 
regard to the Gospel, but their entire orthodoxy, except in 
a point of discipline, was fully and frankly admitted. The 
argument, therefore, proves a great deal too much, and 
consequently creates a suspicion of some fundamental flaw. 
We will now proceed to a brief historical sketch, which will 
be a useful preparation for the discussion of details. 

Eusebius? relates that in the closing years of the second 
century there was no small disputation because the parishes 
of all Asia (that is, probably of the province), appealing to an 
ancient tradition, thought that they ought to observe the 
fourteenth day of the month as the Feast of the Passover of 
Salvation, the day on which the Jews were directed to kill 
the lamb. Accordingly on this day, on whatever day of the 
week it fell, they put an end to the fast, whereas the churches 
throughout all the rest of the world, following an apostolic 
tradition, thought it unbecoming to terminate it on any other 
than the day of our Saviour’s resurrection. Synods of bishops 
were held, letters were circulated, and there was a con- 
currence of opinion that the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection 


1 An Attempt to Ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1867, p. 117. 

ἈΠ i. ¥. 23. 

8 Tod σωτηρίου πάσχα, so-called, presumably, to distinguish the Christian 
from the Jewish Passover. 


448 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


from the dead should not be celebrated on any other than 
the Lord’s Day, and that on this day alone should the fast at 
the Passover be terminated. Several of these writings were 


extant in the time of Eusebius, and we should observe that 
among the bishops to whom he particularly refers are those 
of Pontus, for we thus learn that the Quartodeciman view 
did not extend over the whole of Asia Minor. The bishops 
of Asia, however, were not convinced ; and their leader, Poly- 
crates, addressed a letter to Victor of Rome, defending their | 
position. A portion of this letter has been preserved by 
Eusebius. Polycrates says: “We therefore keep the day 
not in a reckless manner, neither adding nor taking away. 
For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep.” He proceeds 
to specify Philip, one of the twelve apostles, “and moreover, 
also, John, who leaned on the breast of the Lord, who became 
a priest, having worn the petalon, and martyr and teacher: 
he sleeps in Ephesus.” Among more recent bishops, then 
deceased, he names Polycarp, Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius, 
Melito, and says that “these all kept the day of the Passover 
on the fourteenth, according to the Gospel, transgressing in 
nothing, but following according to the rule of the faith.” 
He himself followed the tradition of his relatives, among 
whom he was the eighth bishop. He had been sixty-five 
years in the Lord, had met with brethren from all parts of 
the world, had gone through every holy scripture, and was 
not alarmed, for those who were greater than he had said, 
“We must obey God rather than men.” He could mention 
the bishops whom he had summoned at Victor’s request, who 
were very numerous, and signified their approval of the 
epistle. Victor’s reply to this letter was an attempt to 
excommunicate as heterodox the parishes of all Asia, 
together with the neighbouring churches. So extreme . 


1 Tbid., 24. 2 "Apadiodpyntov. — 


HISTORICAL SKETCH 449 


measure, however, did not meet with universal approval, 
and remonstrances were addressed to the bishop of Rome, 
urging him to have some regard for peace, and for unity and 
love towards his neighbours. Among others, Irenzeus wrote 
in the name of the brethren in Gaul. He admitted that the 
mystery of the Lord’s resurrection ought to be celebrated only 
on the Lord’s Day, but he admonished Victor not to cut off 
whole churches of God for observing an ancient custom. For, 
he added, the dispute was not only about the day, but about 
the very form of the fast, some fasting one day, some two or 
more; and these varieties, which arose at an earlier time from 
simplicity and ignorance, did not disturb their mutual. peace, 
but the difference of the fast proved the harmony of the 
faith. He then proceeded to relate an event which carries 
back our history from thirty to forty years. The presbyters 
who presided over the church of Rome before Soter (going 
back as far as Xystus, 115-125 A.D., according to Lipsius) 
did not themselves observe [? the day], and nevertheless they 
remained at peace with those who came from the parishes in 
which it was observed, although the contrast was made more 
obvious by the proximity. Never were any rejected, and the 
Roman presbyters, though not themselves observing, sent the 
Eucharist to those who observed! And when the blessed 
Polycarp was staying at Rome in the time of Anicetus 
(2155 A.D.), the latter could not persuade him not to observe, 
as he had always observed with John, the disciple of our 
Lord, and with the rest of the apostles with whom he 
associated; nor was Anicetus persuaded to observe, for he 
said that he ought to adhere to the custom of the presbyters 
before him. Nevertheless these two men had communion 
with one another, and in the church Anicetus allowed Poly- 


_ 1 This circumstance clearly indicates a difference between the celebration 
_ of the Eucharist and the celebration of the Passover. 


29 


450 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY | ἠδ 1 


carp to celebrate the Eucharist, so that they parted in peace. 
Ireneus does not tell us, in the quotations which Eusebius | 
has given, from what sources he derived his information; but 
he must have had ample opportunities of learning the facts, — 
and I see no reason for calling them in question. 

Returning to the time of Victor, we find an incident of 
some importance, which is related only too briefly by 
Eusebius! The bishops of Palestine met together and drew 
up a letter in which they made a lengthened statement * about 
the tradition which had come down to them, from the 
succession of the apostles, in regard to the Passover. On 
this most interesting point we are unfortunately left without — 
information, and we cannot say to what apostles they appealed, 
or through what men the tradition had come down; but in 
comparing this with the Asiatic tradition we must remember 
that considerably more than a century had elapsed since the 
last apostle left Palestine, and that the country had been so 


ριον". a σισν 


distracted by insurrections and wars that there may well 


have been some break in the continuity of ecclesiastical 
customs, whereas in Asia our evidence professes to go back 
to the time of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of John. 
Nevertheless the Palestinian bishops themselves attached great 
importance to their decision, for at the end of the letter they 
expressed a desire that a copy should be sent to every church, 
so that they might not be responsible for those who “easily 
led their own souls astray.” They added that a letter had 
been received from Alexandria, from which it appeared that 
there also the same holy day was observed. That day, as we 
have seen, was a Sunday; but what Sunday we have not yet 
been told. | 

Kusebius gives us one other glimpse into the controversies | 
about the Passover in the second century.? Melito, bishop 


1 Thid. 25. 2 Πλεῖστα διειληφότες. 3 H. E., iv. 26. 


HISTORICAL SKETCH 451 


of Sardis, who is mentioned in the ietter of Polycrates as a 
supporter of the Asiatic custom, wrote two books on the 
Passover. The historian quotes only three lines from this 
treatise, and tells us nothing of its purport; but we learn 
that it was written in consequence of a great controversy 
which arose in Laodicea about the Passover, when Servilius 
Paulus was proconsul of Asia,! on occasion of the martyrdom 
of Sagaris. It is generally assumed that this controversy 
related to the point in dispute between the eastern and the 
western churches, and it is possible that on the death of 
Sagaris, who, as we have learned from Polycrates, was a 
Quartodeciman bishop, there may have been an attempt to 
introduce the western custom; but we must bear in mind 
that this is pure conjecture, and does not rest on a particle 
of evidence. Irenzus, as we have seen, expressly tells us 
that the controversy was not only about the day; and this 
particular dispute may have been about the fast, or about 
the meaning to be attached to the day, or about the evan- 
gelical chronology. Be this as it may, Melito’s work induced 
Clement of Alexandria to write a treatise of his own on the 
Passover, but hardly as a formal reply, for Eusebius only 
says he has mentioned Melito’s essay as the cause of his 
composition. Some fragments have come down to us of a 
work by Apollinaris of Hierapolis on the same subject,’ and 
it has been supposed that it too was written in reply to 
Melito; but of this there is no evidence whatever, and it is 
certainly curious that critics who so readily disbelieve facts 
which are more or less strongly attested, so confidently accept 
statements which are not supported by testimony of any 
kind. What the position of Apollinaris really was we shall 
have to consider further on. 

In spite of the strong measures adopted by Victor, the 


1 About 164-6 A.D. 2 Preserved in the Chronicon Paschale. 


452 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


Se 


several churches continued in the observance of their 
respective customs till the time of Constantine, and the : 
settlement of this question was one of the objects with which 

the Council of Nica was summoned.! It was decreed that 
all should celebrate the paschal festival at the same time,’ 

and a letter from the synod announced the good news that : 
all the brethren in the East, who formerly kept the Passover 

with the Jews, would henceforth act agreeably to the Roman — 
practice. Constantine himself appealed to the churches ἴῃς 
a letter which deals with the question at some length.* But 
even these combined authorities were not sufficient to ; 
terminate the controversy. Epiphanius tells us that men i 


were still writing and disputing about it in his time, and 
that the Audians persisted in keeping the Passover with the 
Jews.” Some of the Novatians also, in the latter part of the { 
fourth century, dissented from the general practice, in opposi-- 
tion to the custom of their own sect.6 But we need not 


dwell upon these later events; for any details which throw 
light on the subject under consideration will be noticed in 
the following discussion. ; 

We must now endeavour to interpret this ancient con- 
troversy, and examine its bearing on the Johannine author- 
ship of the Gospel. We must consider first the origin, extent, 
and meaning of the celebration known among the carly 
Christians as the Passover.’ | 

There can, I think, be no doubt that it was imported into 
Christianity from Judaism, though probably from the first 
it received an altered significance. Jewish Christians would 


1 Socrates, i, 8. 2 Sozomen, I. xxi. 6. 3 Socrates, i. 9. 

* Given in Euseb., Vit. Con., iii. 17-20; Socrates, i. 9 ; Theodoret, Ee 
Hist., 1. 9. 2 

τ Nowe στ Ὁ 

ΒΟΌΣ "ἂν 28, Vv. 21, vil. 5 ; Sozom., vI. xxiv. 6-7; VII. xviii. 

7 Td Πάσχα. 


ORIGIN OF THE CELEBRATION 453 


naturally keep the Passover with their countrymen, but 
would do so in remembrance, no longer of the deliverance 
from Egypt, but of Christ; and as the Old Testament was 
accepted by the Church as sacred Scripture, the ceremony 
would easily pass on to the Gentiles, who would look upon 
their own rite as the true and spiritual fulfilment of the law. 
That this was actually the course of events may be inferred 
from all the evidence at our disposal. 

The name of the festival is simply a repetition in Greek 
letters of the Aramaic form of nbs, the Hebrew word for 
Passover. The preservation of the same name points to con- 
tinuity of practice; and we must observe that the use of 
this Jewish name is not local or temporary, but universal 
and permanent. Everywhere the old writers assume that 
the feast in question is the Passover, and that it had been 
and was still kept by Jews as well as Christians. The 
significance of this fact is lost if we translate the word by 
our Easter; and I have therefore retained the translation 
which is habitually given to the Hebrew term. 

How this festival of Jewish name was celebrated in the 
earliest times, and to what extent it partook of the character 
of the Passover, our authorities do not inform us. In the 
fourth century it was regarded as the chief celebration in the 
year; the night before was turned into day by the splendour 
of the illuminations; and Easter day itself was kept with 
the utmost religious joy by all sections of the people! No 
doubt the ceremonial would tend to become more magnificent 
as time went on; but from the first it must have had some- 
thing to distinguish it from all other feasts, and to give 
appropriateness to the name by which it was called. The 
argument against the Johannine authorship of the Gospel 


1 See details and authorities in the Dvctionary of Christian Antiqutties, 
article, “ Easter, ceremonies of.” 


454 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


requires that at least its principal feature should have been 
the commemoration of the Last Supper on the presumed 
anniversary of the day when it was actually eaten; but this 
supposition is exposed to fatal objections. In the first place, 
it is totally destitute of evidence. Secondly, there would 
have been nothing distinctive in such a celebration, for the 
Lord’s Supper was administered every week. But most 
important of all in our present inquiry is this, that if the 
question had been on what day it was proper to commemorate 
the Last Supper, the controversy must have had quite a 
different form from that which it actually assumed. The 
dispute could not have been between the fourteenth day of 
the month and the first day of the week, but must have been . 
between the thirteenth and the fourteenth days of the month, 
the advocates of the former appealing to the Fourth Gospel. 
There would then have been real grounds for asserting an 
inconsistency between the alleged Johannine practice and the 
Johannine Gospel; but of any question whether the thirteenth 
or fourteenth day should be kept there is not a trace. The 
Western Church might, however, have preferred regulating 
even the commemoration of the Last Supper by the day of the 
week and not by the day of the year, but if so, Thursday, 
and not Sunday, would have been the proper time. The sup- 
position, therefore, that the Passover was merely an annual 
celebration of the Lord’s Supper must be discarded. With 
this conclusion the date of the Last Supper ceases to have 
anything to do with the controversy, and the argument 
collapses. | 

It has, however, been supposed that the eastern festival was 
much more Jewish in form than the western, whereas the 
Fourth Gospel wishes to separate the Last Supper from the 
Passover. Even if this were true, it would not signify, unless 
the question had arisen in what form the Last Supper should 


MODE OF CELEBRATION pais 


be celebrated ; but of this there is not a trace. Still it will be 
interesting to inquire how far the allegation can be sustained. 
All Churches agreed, as we have seen, in calling the festival 
the Passover, and thus recognising its Jewish origin. In 
accordance with this name it was formerly supposed that at 
the time of the paschal controversy the whole Church kept 
the Jewish Passover, and that a lamb was slain; but after- 
wards it was admitted that this was not the case with the 
Western Church, but only with the Eastern. But Schiirer, on 
whose authority this statement is made, adds that even the 
latter view is now generally given up. He maintains that 
certainly the Quartodecimans did not kill a lamb, for that 
portion of the celebration ceased even among the Jews after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, and even before that time the 
Jews living away from Palestine partook of an ordinary meal. 
It may be doubted whether the argument from Jewish custom 
is conclusive. The Jews naturally dispensed with the lamb 
when the Temple was destroyed ; but the Christians recognised 
the Church as the true temple of God, and its members as 
spiritual kings and priests; and they might therefore consider 
it proper to kill the lamb wherever they were residing, and 
may have adopted that custom before the destruction of 
Jerusalem. At all events we are not without some traces of 
this custom. Epiphanius, speaking of the manner in which 
“the holy Church of God” celebrates the Passover, says: “ We 
_take the sheep from the tenth day, recognizing the name of 
Jesus on account of the iota.”? Elsewhere, having quoted the 
“commandment to take a sheep from the tenth day of the 
Ὧ8᾽ and keep it till the fourteenth, he adds that the 


> 2 See-his dissertation, “De controversiis paschalibus sec. p. Chr. n. sec. 
exortis,” delivered July 26, 1869 ; translated in the Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 
(1870), which last I have used, § iv. 
2 The first letter of Jesus, and the symbol for ten. Her., 1. 3. 


456 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


Church continues to observe the Feast of the Passover, that 
is, the appointed week, following the arrangement of the 
apostles themselves, from the second day of the week, which 
is the purchasing of the sheep; and if the fourteenth day of 
the month fell on the second or any subsequent day of the 
week, the sacrifice of the sheep went on. The Quartodecimans 
also would seem to have used the sheep, for Epiphanius ἢ urges 
as an inconsistency in their practice, that, if they keep the 
Passover on the fourteenth, they have need to take the sheep — 
from the tenth, and keep it till the fourteenth, and so their 
fast would continue, not for one day, but for five. These 
passages certainly suggest a general practice of killing a sheep 
at the Passover on the part of Christians. In the ninth 
century one of the charges brought by the Greek against the 
Roman Church, and repudiated by the latter as false, was that 
they blessed and offered a lamb at the Passover, according to 
the custom of the Jews, upon the altar, together with the 
Lord’s body. The charge may have been untrue in its precise 
form; but that it was not without foundation appears from a 
reference by Walafrid Strabo to the error of some “who 
consecrated with a proper [or special] benediction the flesh of 
a [or ‘the,’ the Latin leaving it doubtful] lamb at the Passover, 
placing it near or under the altar, and on the day of the 
resurrection partook of the flesh itself before other food for the 
body; and the order of this benediction,” he adds, “is still 
observed by many.”® The formula of benediction has been 
preserved,‘ and it is stated in one of the Roman rituals that ἃ 


1 Her., xx. 12. =e: 3 De rebus eccles., c. 18. 

4On the day of the Holy Passover, after the celebration of Mass, the 
following Benedictio agni in Pascha was pronounced in the Secretarium : 
“Post celebratam Dominice sanctz Pasche solennitatem, postque etiam 
transactos jejuniorum dies, jam animabus spiritualibus dapibus refectis de 
mensa tus majestatis, offerimus famuli tui pro hujus fragilitate corpusculi 
aliquantulum reparandi, hance usui nostro concessam creaturam agni, 


MODE OF ΟΕΙΕΒΕΒΑΤΙΟΝ. 457 


lamb was solemnly partaken of by the Pope and eleven 
cardinals! The lamb was roasted, and the benediction 


pronounced, and the whole ceremony was in imitation of the 
Last Supper, as, indeed, is expressly stated, “in figure of the 
twelve apostles around the table of Christ, when they ate the 
Passover.” The lamb is not brought into connection with the 


| altar; and it was to such a connection, and not to the eating 
of the lamb, that the Greek Church objected. The ceremony 
took place in the Secretarium, after the celebration of Mass in 
the Church.” The Pope, having partaken of the lamb, handed 
: it to the next basilicarius, saying, “Quod facis, fac citius. 


Sicut ille accepit ad damnationem, tu accipe ad remissionem.” 
Distribution was then made to the rest who were present.® 
At the same time a curious custom prevailed “in the Catholic 
Church within the Roman state,” which further illustrates the 
connection of Easter with the Passover. The archdeacon 
moulded a preparation of wax and oil into the likeness of 
lambs, and these wax lambs were distributed among the 
people in the church after Mass and Communion, on the 


poscentes ut eum ore proprio nobis signantibus benedicas, ac dextera 
tua sanctifices, et universis ex eo sumentibus ministrata munuscula grata 
effici praestes, atque his cum gratiarum actione perceptis te DEUM, qui es 
cibus vite et anime nostre, magis et inhianter desideremus, et indefesse 
fruamur.” This is immediately followed by a Benedictio aliarum carnium, 
in which there is an allusion to the command given to Moses and “thy 
people” to eat a lamb in Egypt, “in figura agni Domini nostri Jesu 
Christi, cujus sanguine omnia primogenita tibi de mundo redemisti.” See 
Melchior Hittorpius, De divinis Catholice Ecclesix Officis ac Minsteriss, 
Coloniz, 1568, where an Ordo Romanus is printed from an old manuscript. 
The above quotations are from p. 79. There is a full account of the 
offices for the entire period of Easter celebration ; but the above are 
sufficient for our purpose. 

1 See Gieseler, Kirchengesch., τι. i. § 41, note 12, to which my attention 
was called by J. J. Tayler, p. 122, note. 

2 See the account quoted in a previous note from Melchior Hittorpius. 

3 See Mabillon’s Musewm Italicum ; Lutecie Parisiorum, 1867-9, the Ordo 
Romanus auctore Benedicto (written before 1143), Tom. ii. p. 142; also 
auct. Cencio, pp. 186-7. 


458 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


Saturday following Easter Sunday, that, “as the children of 
Israel in Egypt inscribed the sign T on the thresholds of 
their houses, that they might not be smitten by the angel, 
so we also ought to write this sign on the threshold of 
our houses by faith, from the blood of the passion of the 
Immaculate Lamb, Christ, lest we be smitten by the devil 
and by faults.” Urban V. (1362-1370) sent the emperor 
(Charles IV.) one of these wax lambs as “a great gift,” 
accompanied by some Latin verses, which show that it was 
expected to act as a charm.” In the foregoing accounts it is 
clear that the survival of the proper Passover was also a 
memorial of the Last Supper, and at the same time of the 
death of Christ as the true Paschal Lamb. It was not, 
however, celebrated on either the thirteenth or fourteenth 
of the month, but on Easter Sunday, when it brought the 
days of the fast to a close. The connection with the Passover 
has not been wholly forgotten in later times. In the Mis- 
sale Romanum authorized by the Council of Trent, Easter is 
still the “dies pasche,” and “on this day particularly” thanks 
are given to God, because “ Christ our Passover was sacrificed ; 
for he is the True Lamb, who has taken away the sins of the 
world.” Even the paschal symbols have not wholly dis- 
appeared from modern times. The following statements of 
Cardinal Wiseman’s are interesting: “The midnight service 
of Easter-eve, now performed on Saturday morning, gives a 
similar coincidence,? and stronger authority for this con- 
nection.* Before the Mass new fire is struck and blessed, 
and a large candle, known by the name of the Paschal candle, 
being blessed by a deacon, is therewith lighted... . This 


1 [bid. in several “ Orders,” pp. 31, 138, 144 8.) 163, 202, 375 8ῆ.γ) 509 sq. 
2 Iiid., Ordo auct J. Gaietano, p. 377. 

3 Referring to lighting the church with twenty-four candles. 

4 Between the lights and their mystical application. 


MODE OF CELEBRATION 459 


year! being the seventh of the pontificate of the present Pope, 
you will have the opportunity of witnessing another very 
ancient rite, only performed every seventh year of each 

reign. This is the blessing of the Agnus Dei, waxen cakes 
stamped with the figure of a lamb. It will take place in the 
Vatican Palace on Thursday in Easter Week, and a distribution 
of them will be made in the Sistine Chapel on the following 
Saturday. The origin of this rite seems to have been the 
very ancient custom of breaking up the paschal candle of the 
preceding year, and distributing the fragments among the 
faithful. Durandus, one of the eldest writers on church 
ceremonies, tells us that on Saturday in Holy Week the 
acolytes of the Roman Church made lambs of new blessed 
wax, or of that of the old paschal candle, mixed with chrism, 
which the Pope, on the following Saturday, distributes to the 
faithful.”* The Prayer-book of the Church of England 
introduces the words “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for 
us” at morning prayer on Easter Day. Mr Tayler? refers 
also to the practice of the Armenian Christians, who not only 
ate a lamb on Easter Sunday, but actually smeared their 
doorposts with its blood.* 

1 18309. 

2 Durand., “ Rationale Divin Offic., lib. vi. cap. 69, p. 349.” Four 
Lectures on the Offices and Ceremonies of Holy Week, as performed im the 
Papal Chapels, by Nicholas Wiseman, D.D., 1839, pp. 104-6. My attention 
was called to this work by the Rev. C. Hargrove. Lambs made of 
sweetmeats may be still seen in abundance in the shops in Rome* at 
Easter. 

3 P 122, note, 

4Mr F. C. Conybeare tells me that this is still the case, only they 
kill a sheep, not a lamb, and that the Greeks have the same practice. 
In a paper read before the Society of Historical Theology in Oxford, 
March το, 1898, Mr Conybeare quotes from a letter written shortly after 
A.D. 1150, by Nerses of Rom-kla, an account of the ritual connected with 
the offering of the Paschal lamb. Further, “ Nerses notes that it was not 


only inculcated by St. Gregory, whom he declares to have been as much 
inspired by the Holy Spirit as any other of the apostles, but was also in 


46ο PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


These instances certainly “justify the conclusion that in 
the Christian pascha there was a gradual transition from 
Jewish to Christian usage,’! or perhaps we should rather 
say, a gradual dropping of Jewish symbolism for Christian 
facts; but it seems to me a very strange inference that “the 
original dispute between the Quartodecimans and the Catholics 
related to something more fundamental than a mere reckoning 
of days,” ? for the instances which are cited point to Catholic 
practice, and Mr Tayler himself has to concede that “Jewish 
usage lingered longer in the West than in the East,” and 
that this is “contrary to what might have been expected 
from the earlier stages of the controversy.” It would be 
truer to say that it is contrary to the hypothesis on which 
Mr Tayler’s argument is so largely based. We should 
observe also that the distinction between Quartodecimans 
and Catholics is quite misleading for the period to which 
our inquiry properly belongs. The Quartodecimans were 
Catholics, and in spite of Victor remained within the com- 
munion of the Church. 

If we pass for a moment to another region, a similar 
testimony reaches us from eastern Syria. In a Homily on 
the Passover, written by Aphraates in the year 343-4, there 
is a passage in which the Christian festival is shown to 
correspond, point by point, with the ancient institution. The 
Redeemer himself was the lamb, of whom not a bone was 


vogue in the Roman Church. Gregory, he says, did not invent the rite 
of immolating a lamb at the Passover, but ‘ received it from the Roman (by 
which he need not mean the Greek) Church, and he handed it on to us, just 
as it is still practised in the entire Church of Europe, with greater care 
even than among ourselves. For when the lamb is roasted, they lay it 
under the altar at the time of the sacrifice (7.¢., Mass) on the day of the 
Passover, and after the communion of the mystery the priests divide it, and 
give a share to each, an” eat it within the church itself before they take 
any ordinary food.’ ” 
Tayler, p. 122. 2 Ibid. 


: 


ne ae ὦ» 


MODE OF CELEBRATION 461 


broken; and most of the ceremonies receive a spiritual or 
figurative interpretation. But a real lamb seems to have 
been offered as a symbol of the Lamb of God, for the com- 
mandment not to eat the Passover raw or boiled with water 
is explained quite literally: “The sacrifice which is offered 
in the Church of God is roasted at the fire; and it is not 
boiled, and is not offered raw.” Such language is not 
applicable to the elements of the Eucharist, and must refer 
to an actual lamb; and this inference is confirmed by a 
sentence a little further on: “ And if he says, ‘Eat it as men 
who hasten away,’ this is fulfilled in the Church of God in 
this wise, that they eat the lamb ‘as men who hasten away,’ 
standing on their feet.”? 

So far, then, the evidence seems to warrant our saying 
that in the Church generally the Passover was a continuation 
of the Jewish festival, and resembled it sufficiently to justify 
the retention of the ancient name; and that, if a lamb was 
eaten, this practice was certainly not distinctive of the 
(Juartodecimans. 

The Church retained a clear consciousness of the connection 
between its own Passover and the Jewish, and, though alter- 
ing the day of celebration, appealed to the original command- 
ment as of fundamental importance in determining the proper 
date for the observance. Thus the writer of the Paschal 
Chronicle (about 630 A.D.”) calls attention to the fact that 


1 See “ Aphrahat’s des persischen Weisen Homilien aus dem Syrischen 
tibersetzt und erlautert,” von Dr Georg Bert, in Texte und Untersuchungen, 
ili. 3; Hom., xii. § 6, p. 191. 

2 The Paschal Chronicle extends to the year 627, but, according to the 
title in the best manuscript, ought to reach the year 629. Holstein, the 
Pope’s librarian from 1636 to 1661, is said by Ducange to have had a 
codex containing a shorter and earlier form of the Chronicle, reaching only 
to the year 354, and omitting some of the matter before that date which 
is found in the longer form. MHolstein’s good faith was subsequently 
questioned ; but the careful researches of Mr F. C. Conybeare seem con- 


462 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


“the law expressly prescribes the holy and blessed Passover 
of God, at the same time indicating the month in which one 
ought to do this, and ordering the day to be observed with 
great accuracy,” and proceeds to show why the Christians, 
though basing their calculations upon that day, postpone the 
keeping of the festival till the following Sunday.’ But the 
legal Passover was only shadowy and typical; Christ himself 
was the true Lamb in the Feast of the Passover, as the 
evangelist John teaches, and suffered in the feast. This is 
also written by the blessed Paul.? Accordingly, when the 
typical and shadowy Passover was brought to an end by 
being fulfilled, “the genuine Passover of the holy Catholic 
and Apostolic Church of God began, in memory of which 
every year the Church of God celebrates the holy feast of 
the Passover, keeping without error the fourteenth day of the 
first lunar month, in which the legal Passover was ordered to 
be observed”; but if this fell upon the Lord’s Day, the cele- 
bration was postponed till the following Sunday.’ It is clear, 
then, that even at a comparatively late period the Church 
professed to keep the Passover in obedience to the require- 
ment of “the divine law,”* only departing from the letter of 
the commandment, as it did in other instances, and filling the 
shadowy form with a Christian significance. There is nothing 
in the earlier accounts inconsistent with this view, while 


clusively to prove that Ducange was not mistaken. See his article, “On 
the Date of Composition of the Paschal Chronicle,” in the Journal of 
Theological Studies, 11. pp. 288-298. 

1 Pp. 28 sqq., ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1832. 2 P. 10 sq. 

3 P. 16. See also p. 419, and p. 423 sq. ,where it is said that the apostles 
handed it down to the churches to keep the fourteenth of the first lunar 
month, and the writer adds as a reason for putting off the celebration till 
the following Sunday, “that we may not feast with the Jews.” Epiphanius 
also says the law was not destroyed, but fulfilled, the type was not annulled, 
but presented the truth (Her., 1. 2). 

4 See p. 29, line 21. 


AGREEMENT IN MODE OF CELEBRATION 465 


some points are, as we shall see, distinctly confirmed; so 
that we may, I think, regard it as established that the 
Christian Passover was a continuation of the Jewish, more or 
less modified to suit Christian ideas. 
We must now inquire whether there was any material 
difference between the Asiatic and the other churches except 
in regard to the time of observance; for it is sometimes 
thought that the Quartodecimans kept the feast in a much 
more Jewish way, and that one object of the Fourth Gospel 
was to detach the festival from everything connected with 
Judaism. At first sight some of the allusions to the 
controversy may seem to justify this opinion. Socrates, in 
introducing the subject, contents himself with saying that 
some were anxious to celebrate the feast in too Jewish a 
way. Sozomen uses similar language,” and refers to 
Quartodecimans as those who imitate the Jews.* On this 
subject the letter of Constantine speaks very strongly. It 
seemed unworthy to celebrate the most holy feast conformably 
to the custom of the Jews. Let there be nothing common 
with the most hateful mob of the Jews. We should have no 
communion with the practices of such wicked men, the slayers 
of the Lord. Eusebius, too, in referring to the discussion of 
the Passover question at the Council of Nicza, says that 
finally the easterns gave way, and thus one festival of Christ 
was established, and they withdrew from the slayers of the 
Lord, and joined their fellow-believers, for nature draws like 
to like These statements, if they stood alone, might lead us 
to suppose that the general body of the Church was bitterly 

44,8. ih, MVEA 3 VII. xviii. Io. 

4 From a writing “On the Feast of the Passover,” printed in Mai, Nova 
Patrum Bibliotheca, iv. pp. 209-216, § 8. This is a large section of the 
work on the Passover presented by Eusebius to Constantine, preserved by 


Nicetas, Serrarum Episcopus (end of the eleventh century), in his great 
manuscript catena to Luke. See Editoris monttum, prefixed to the extract. 


ae 
464 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 
hostile to a Jewish mode of celebrating the Passover, to which 
Quartodecimans tenaciously clung. But the moment we ask 
what it was that was Jewish in the Quartodeciman practice, — 
this supposition is dispelled. There is one invariable answer ;— 
the Jews were not to prescribe the time of the Church’s 
festival. Constantine says that the controversy was “about 
the most holy day of the Passover,” and the decision of the — 
Council was that all, everywhere, should keep it on one and 
the same day. Sozomen also says that “it seemed good to the 
Synod that all should keep the Paschal festival at the same 
season,” and mentions no other point of dispute It is 
to this single question that all the arguments are directed, 
and I cannot recall any charge against the Quartodecimans of | 
following the Jews in any other objectionable particular. The 
argument, therefore, founded on the contrary supposition 
completely breaks down. 


But we are not without positive evidence that it was only 
the scruple about the day which separated the Quarto- 
decimans from their brethren. Polycrates, in his letter, says, 
“We therefore keep the day without recklessness, neither 
adding nor taking away,’ and, having referred to the apostles 
and bishops whose authority he followed, declares that these — 
all kept the fourteenth day “according to the Gospel, trans-— 
gressing in nothing, but following according to the rule of | 
the faith.” This, I think, is equivalent to a statement that, 
except in regard to the day, they followed the general 
practice of Christendom. It was on account of this single 
peculiarity that Victor wished to excommunicate them. It 
is to this that Irenzeus addresses himself in his remonstrance. | 
He refers, indeed, to differences of practice about the length — 
of the fast, but this is only to convince Victor that mere 
varieties of usage cannot justify an excommunication. It 


Lee Τὶ 


AGREEMENT IN MODE OF CELEBRATION 46ς 


fseems clear that the Roman bishop had not included the 
} nature of the fast in his indictment, and in any case this had 
nothing to do with Judaism. The testimony of Hippolytus 


is explicit. He ranks the Quartodecimans among heretics, 
and describes them as “of a quarrelsome nature, uninstructed 
in knowledge, too contentious in disposition”; and still he 
has nothing to bring against them except their observance 
of the fourteenth day. “In everything else,” he says, “they 
agree with all the things handed down to the Church by the 
apostles.”! Epiphanius also says, “they hold everything as 
the Church,” but in regard to the Passover have been led 
astray by Jewish fables. The only Judaism which he 
ascribes to them is their adhesion to the fourteenth day, and 
the practice of the Church which he justifies is the departure 
from the Jewish day.? In speaking of the Audians, a sect 
who followed the Quartodeciman practice, he explains what 
is meant by “observing the Passover with the Jews”; “that 
is,’ he says, “at the season in which the Jews keep their 
feast of unleavened bread, then they themselves are eager to 
hold the Passover.” ὅ 

Not only, then, is there no ground for the assertion that — 
the Quartodecimans clung to a peculiarly Jewish mode of 
celebration, which had been sanctioned by the Apostle John, 
and was repudiated by the evangelist and the majority of 
the Church, but such a notion is distinctly contrary to all 
the evidence we possess. 

We must now inquire a little more fully into the character 
and meaning of the celebration. It was a festival, a time of 
rejoicing. This would follow from its being regarded as the 
Passover, for the Passover is always spoken of as a feast, and 
was signalized, not by a fast, but by a characteristic meal. 
Accordingly, the Christian Passover is referred to as a feast 


1 Ref. omn. her., viii. 18. 2 Her,, 1. 8. Her., Ixx. Ὁ: 
30 


466 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


so constantly that it is needless to refer to particular 
instances. I will notice only two writers who dwell upon 
its festive character. Eusebius alludes to it as a more 
splendid feast than that of the Jews. It took place at the — 
most delightful time of the year, and at this season the 
Saviour of the whole cosmos, the great luminary, lightened 
the world with the rays of piety, and peoples everywhere kept 
the feast of their liberation from manifold atheism. There- 
fore no labour was allowed, but they imitated the rest which 
they hoped for in heaven; “whence not even in our prayers 
do we bend the knee, nor do we afflict ourselves with fasts.” 
So full of joy was the time that they feasted for seven 
whole weeks, till “another great feast,” Pentecost, came in+ 
Gregory Nazianzen dwells in exalted language on the 
splendour of this “feast of feasts and assembly of assem- 
blies.”?2 To the general testimony I know of but one 
exception. Tertullian alludes to “the day of the Passover, 
in which there is a common and, as it were, public religious 
observance of a fast.”’? Here, however, the writer is not 
describing the Easter ceremonial, but merely refers to the 
more public character of the fast which then took place, in 
contrast with the more private fasts which it was possible to 
conceal; and we may therefore assume that he is describing, 
not a characteristic of the day in the African churches, but 
a characteristic of the fast which, as we shall see, was ter- 
minated, at the supposed hour of the resurrection, on Easter 
morning. This interpretation is confirmed by another 
passage, where are the words, “When Jeremiah says, ‘and I 
will gather them from the ends of the earth in a festive day,’ | 
he signifies the day of the Passover and of Pentecost, which 
is properly a festive day.”* “Festive day” seems intended 


1 In Mai, §§ 2-5. 2 Quoted in}jChron. Pasch., p. 428. 
3 Jejunii religio ; De Orat., 18. 4 De Baptismo, 19. 


MEANING OF THE CELEBRATION 467 


to describe either day indifferently. Be this as it may, 
there can be no doubt that with the mass of Christians the 
Passover was kept as a festival, a time of rejoicing. Was 
this also the case with the Quartodecimans? If I correctly 
understand Mr Tayler, he thinks not. He maintains that 
the Jewish Christians “kept as the oldest Christian pascha 
the anniversary of the farewell supper on the evening of the 
fourteenth of Nisan.”! A little farther on he says that “an 
obvious contrariety was soon experienced between the Jewish 
and the Christian idea associated with the word pascha. To 
the Jew it expressed rejoicing—the memory of deliverance ; 
to the Christian it suggested, in the first instance, the remem- 
brance of sorrow and loss, the death of his benefactor and 
best earthly friend. To the one it was a festival; to the 
other it was a fast.”2 But, strangely enough, when we pass 
over a few pages we meet with the following objection to 
the theory that the Quartodecimans commemorated, not the 
Last Supper, but the death of Christ: “If the death-day of 
Christ was observed on the fourteenth of Nisan, it must 
have been observed as a fast day, and would, therefore, have 
been in harmony with the prolonged course of fasting which 
preceded the anniversary of the resurrection. But the com- 
plaint against the Quartodecimans, as we have seen, was 
this—that by keeping the fourteenth of Nisan they inter- 
rupted with a feast, which the old pascha or Passover 
properly was, the continuous fasting of passion week.”? 
This is, I believe, perfectly correct as a statement of the 
fact; but then it is not easily reconciled with the previous 
passage, and it is quite as fatal to Mr Tayler’s own view as 
to the one against which it is urged. It becomes necessary, 
however, to examine the evidence relating to the Quarto- 
decimans’ usage on this point. 
1, P. 114. pee ee 8 Ῥ, 121 84. 


468 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


We have already seen that the one charge brought against 
them was that they kept the Passover on the wrong day, and 
there is not a particle of evidence that they violated the 
practice, common to Jews and Christians, of treating the 
celebration as a feast. Eusebius says, “They thought they 
ought to keep the fourteenth day of the moon at the feast of 
the saving Passover,” so that it was necessary to terminate the 
fast on that day, whatever day of the week it might be, where- 
as the other churches thought they ought not to break the fast 
except on the day of the resurrection; and to this effect was 
the decision come to by various synods. This clear statement 
is confirmed by the letter of Constantine. His objection to 
the Quartodecimans is that they “fulfilled that most holy 
feast in conformity with the custom of the Jews.” He 
thought it most impious that there should be discord in 
regard to such a feast, for the day of our liberty which the 
Saviour handed down was one; and it was “unbecoming that 
in the same days some should be devoted to fasts, and others 
be holding banquets, and that after the days of the Passover 
some should be engaged in feasts and recreation, and others 
be given to the appointed fasts.” The sum of the whole 
matter was that the minority gave way, and “it was agreeable 
to the common judgment of all that the most holy feast of 
the Passover should be celebrated on one and the same day.” 
All this is so explicit that there can be no doubt what was 
the nature of the question in the time of Constantine, and 
what Eusebius believed it to have been in the time of 
Polycrates. Eusebius had all the documents before him, and 
in the passages which he quotes there is nothing inconsistent 
with this view. The whole dispute turns on the observance 
of one day rather than another. The fragment from the 
letter of Irenzus, too, while pointing out that different 

ΤΕ By, 23. 


THE PRECEDING FAST 469 


churches had different usages in regard to the character and 
length of the fast, makes no suggestion that the Quarto- 
decimans regarded the Passover itself as a fast, and his 
language is fully explained by the supposition that their one 
error consisted in keeping the feast too soon. We need have 
no hesitation, therefore, in accepting Eusebius’ testimony, and 
believing that from first to last this was the one point which 
caused a division in the Church. I may add that among 
heretical sects, Montanists, Novatians, Audians, which con- 
formed more or less closely to the Jewish time, there is no 
hint that the Passover was ever anything but a feast! To 
this extent, then, the whole Church remained “ Jewish,” that 
the Passover bore distinctly the marks of a festival. 

The celebration was, as we have seen, preceded by a fast. 
This was under no fixed rule, but was of varying length in 
different places. Irenzeus, in his letter, says some fasted one 
day, others two, others more, and some for forty hours of day 
and night. By the time of Eusebius the fast had extended to 
six weeks, or, more exactly, forty days, in imitation of the 
zeal of Moses and Elijah.2 But we learn from Socrates that 
even in his time this was not a universal custom ; for instance, 
the Romans only fasted for three weeks, making an exception 
of Saturday and Sunday. In Constantinople and the sur- 
rounding countries as far as Phcenicia they extended the 
fast to seven weeks, while the Montanists restricted it to two.4 
According to the Apostolical Constitutions the fast was to be 
kept for six days before Easter Sunday, and to terminate at 
cock-crow on the morning of that day.’ As the Church was 
without a fixed rule in regard to the duration of the fast, so 


1 See Sozomen, vi. xxiv. 6, 7, VII. xviii. ; Socrates, v. 21, 22; Epiph., 
Her., 1. 1, 1xx. 9. 

2 In Mai, §§ 4-5. i 22 

4 Sozomen, VII. xix. 7. Sows re. 18: 


470 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


was it with respect to the precise character of the abstinence, 
and the meaning to be attached to it. With Eusebius it was 
“a symbol of sorrow, on account of our former sins, and in 
memory of the saving passion.”® Iam not aware, however, 
that there is any ground for attributing this meaning to it in 
earlier times. A distinct memorial of the passion would not 
have lasted for forty days, and it seems most likely that 
the fast was originally an ascetic preparation for the great 
festival of the redemption; that its length was determined by 
local feeling or by Old Testament examples; and that every- 
one attached to it such significance as the season and a time 
of self-discipline suggested. That the passion should be 
specially remembered on the previous Friday is only what we 
should expect. According to the Apostolical Constitutions 
one object of the fast was to mourn for the destruction 
brought upon the Jews by their impiety; for even Christ 
himself wept over them, as they knew not the time of their 
visitation. The fast was to be kept on the Wednesday and 
Friday on account of the betrayal and the passion, and to be 
more strictly observed on the Friday and the Sabbath, when 
the bridegroom was taken away. We need not, however, 
dwell further on these varieties of usage. Sufficient has been 
said to show that for centuries the Church was largely 
tolerant of local custom. An exception was made in regard 
to the Quartodeciman peculiarity because the Passover was 
the great festival of the year, and, as Constantine said, it 
seemed unbecoming that Christians should not unite in 
the time of its celebration. Other differences were quite 
subordinate, and did not mark such an obvious line of 
separation within the Christian Church.* 


1 Soc., zbid. 2 In Mai, § 11. 3 Ap. Const., v. 15, 18. 
4 For fuller information and references about the fast, see Schiirer, De 
Controv. pasch., § vii. 


TERMINATION OF THE FAST 471 


That the fast terminated, at the latest, very early on Easter 
morning we know from express testimony. The first part 
of a letter addressed by Dionysius of Alexandria to his 
“beloved son and brother Basilides” relates to this question.) 
Basilides, who, as we learn from Eusebius,? was bishop of the 
parishes in Pentapolis, had consulted Dionysius about the 
hour for concluding the fast. He did so owing to a difference 
of opinion among the brethren, some thinking they should do 
it at cock-crow, others “from the evening” (that is, the 
evening before Easter Sunday), the brethren in Rome, as was 
alleged, following the former practice, “those here” (in Egypt, 
or perhaps the East generally) closing the fast sooner. He 
was at a loss how to fix an exact hour; for while it would be 
“acknowledged by all alike” that they ought to begin their 
festivities after the time of the resurrection of our Lord, and 
to humble their souls with fasts up to that time, the Gospels 
contained no exact statement of the hour at which he rose. 
Dionysius in reply considers the accounts in the Gospels, and 
then pronounces his opinion for the guidance of those who 
inquire at what hour or half hour or quarter of an hour they 
ought “to begin the rejoicing at the resurrection of our Lord 
from the dead.” He blamed as negligent those who were in 

Ὁ great a hurry, and ended the fast before midnight; he 
highly applauded those who held out till the fourth watch; 
aiid those who took an intermediate position he would not 

olest, for all were not equally tolerant of the six days of 
fasting, and these days were kept with very different degrees 
of strictness. Mr Tayler® says that the “strong assertion” 
in this passage (that all would acknowledge that the fast 
should terminate at the hour of the resurrection) “should be 


1 A careful edition of the letter is contained in Routh, Relig. Sac., 111. pp. 


223 sqq. 
* Hi. £., vii. 26. 3 \P. 1 2. 


472 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


noticed, as marking the point which the triumph of the 
Catholic principle had already reached,” and, further, that 
“it is quite evident. ... that in the time of Dionysius the 
word πάσχα, in the view which had then become predominant 
in the Catholic Church, had passed on from its original 
association with the fourteenth of Nisan to a fixed position 
in the first day of the week, on which Christ was believed 
to have risen, and had acquired a meaning equivalent to — 
our Easter, as the anniversary of the resurrection.” These 
remarks appear to me to be very misleading; for they surely 
imply that the state of things portrayed in the epistle was 
comparatively recent, and that the general body of the Church 
had once been Quartodeciman, and had undergone a gradual 
change, which was still in progress. But of this there is not 
a particle of evidence. When we first hear of the question, 
the Roman custom is fully established, and believed to rest 
on a very early tradition. When it was introduced it is 
impossible to say with confidence; but there is no ground 
of any sort for the implied suggestion that the churches of 
Rome and Alexandria were ever Quartodeciman. Whether 
the Passover commemorated only the resurrection will appear 
in the sequel. 

Before leaving the subject of the fast we must observe that 
the night before the day of the Passover was spent in a 
vigil! The reason for this observance was twofold; because 
in it Christ returned to life after his passion, and was, in it, 
to receive his kingdom.2, Hieronymus relates a tradition of 
the Jews that Christ would come in the middle of the night, 
as in the Egyptian time when the Passover was celebrated ; 
and to this he traces the apostolic tradition that in the day 
of the vigil of the Passover it was not allowable to dismiss 


1 See an account of vigils in Constit. Apost., v. το. 
2 Lactant, Div. Inst., vii. 19. 


THE VIGIL 473 


|the people before midnight, while they awaited the advent 
lof Christ. After that time, presuming that they were secure, 
all kept the festal day. Now a narrative in Sozomen 2 
connects the feast of the resurrection with this vigil, and 
distinguishes it from the Passover. He tells us that after 
the deposition of John (Chrysostom), “when the forty days’ 
fast was already ceasing, in the sacred night itself in which 
the annual festival in commemoration of the resurrection of 
Christ is celebrated, his partisans were driven out of the 
church,” and on the following day they celebrated the 
Passover in a public bath, under bishops and presbyters and 
the rest whose function it is to administer ecclesiastical affairs. 
This seems to imply that even at this late period the dis- 
tinctive feast of the resurrection took place at night, at the 
proper hour for the cessation of the fast, and that the Passover, 
whatever may have been the mode of its celebration, was a 
separate rite, with its own significance. It is therefore not 
safe to assume that in the Catholic Church the Passover had 
become simply “the anniversary of the resurrection,” though, 
as we shall see, the memory of Christ’s triumph over death 
entered largely into the Christian interpretation of the 
festival. 

In endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of the Christian 
Passover we may begin with a late writer, whose statements 
are sufficiently full and explicit. The writer of the Paschal 
Chronicle, having remarked that Christ, as the true Lamb, 
was sacrificed for us at the feast of the legal Passover, and 
rose the third day, when the priest was required to offer the 
sheaf, says that the typical Passover was brought to an end, 
the real Passover having come. In memory of this the 


1 See Gieseler, Kirch., 1. i. § 53, note 11. See, also, Socrates, vii. 5, “ the 
accustomed vigil.” 
2 VIII. xxl. 


474 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


Church kept the Feast of the Passover every year; and the 
writer describes this as “the holy feast of the resurrection 
of Christ our God from the dead.”1 Although the Passover 
is here called the feast of the resurrection, it is clear from 
what goes before that the memory of the passion was included. 
The resurrection was the crowning event, and presupposed 
the death, whereas the death did not necessarily presuppose 
the resurrection; and accordingly a reference to the resur- 
rection might include both the death of the true Lamb and 
the presentation of the first fruits from the dead. Elsewhere 
the author points out the propriety of celebrating the feast 
of salvation after Christ’s resurrection, which took place on 
the sixteenth of the month,? and from this year Christians 
began to keep the quickening feast of the resurrection? It 
appears, however, that there were some who blamed the 
Church for applying the name of πάσχα to the feast of the 
resurrection, not knowing apparently the meaning of the 
word‘; for it is a Hebrew term signifying a passing over, 
a going out, an overstepping. The Church, therefore, 
necessarily applies the name of πάσχα not only to the passion 
of the Lord, but also to his resurrection; for it is through 
his passion and resurrection that human nature has obtained 
the passing over, and going out, and overstepping of him who 
has the dominion of death ; for if the death of Christ bestowed 
this boon upon us, much more his resurrection, when he rose 
from the dead, the first fruits of them that slept. The 
Israelites were instructed to call only the fourteenth day 
Passover, owing to the events of their history; but the 
Church, for the reason given, necessarily assigns this name 
not only to the passion and death of Christ but also to his 
resurrection. The author concludes his discussion with the 


ge ae NS ΚΕΡῚ 15. θῆς 8. P, 42ο. 
* The writer probably refers to a confusion between the word and πάσχω. 


MEANING OF THE CELEBRATION 475 


ords, “Christ our Passover was sacrificed and rose for us, 
d we call the death and the resurrection of the Lord 
assover.”! It is clear, then, that in the opinion of this 
iter of the seventh century the Passover was a com- 
emoration of the two great acts of redemption, but that 
here was a tendency to lay the chief stress on the closing 
act of triumph over death. 
As the Passover had this twofold reference, it 15 not sur- 
rising that earlier writers allude to it sometimes under one 
f its aspects, sometimes under the other. Sozomen speaks 
ἢ the “first day of the resurrection feast.”? The feast as a 
hole would naturally commemorate the more joyful event, 
nd yet the first day, the proper Passover, might seem to 
ite it with the passion, which had just preceded. Socrates 
accordingly assigns to the “Feast of the Passover "dee 
emory of the saving passion.”* Going back to a still earlier 
time, we find that Constantine describes it as “the feast from 
which we have received the hope of immortality,” and yet in 
the same letter he says that “our Saviour has handed down 
as one the day of our liberty, that is, the day of the most 
holy passion.” Eusebius combines the two ideas, but makes 
the memory of the passion the more prominent. The Jewish 
Passover, he says, was only typical, as is proved by Paul's 
saying, “Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us.” The 
Baptist gives the reason for the sacrifice: “ Behold the Lamb 
of God who takes away the sin of the world.”* It is clear 
that the passion is here the uppermost thought; and we must 
observe that Eusebius sees no inconsistency between this and 
a feast of liberty,> and the celebration of that feast on the 
Lord’s Day. Indeed, he insists that, whereas the Jews killed 
the sheep of the Passover only once a year, “we of the new 


1 Pp. 424 sqq. 2 vil. xix. 6. 8 ν΄. 22. 
4 In Mai, 8 1. § § 3. 


476 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


covenant on each Lord’s Day celebrate our own Passover, are 
always filled with the saving body, always participate in the 
blood of the sheep, always gird up the loins of our soul with 
purity and sobriety,” are always delivered from Egypt; for 
we must do these things, not once a year, but every day 
“Wherefore also every week we celebrate the Feast of our 
Passover, on the saving and dominical day, of the true Sheep 
through whom we were redeemed, fulfilling the mysteries.” 

And again he says that we ought to eat the Passover with 
Christ, removing from our minds all the leaven of wickedness 
and anointing the doorposts of our mind with the blood of 
the Sheep sacrificed for us; and this not at one period of the 
whole year, but. every week.2. And yet again he says, “ We 
celebrate the same mysteries through the whole year,’ fasting 
every Friday in memory of the saving passion, and every 
Lord’s Day quickened by the sanctified body of the same 
saving Passover, and sealing our souls with his precious blood.* 
The weekly celebration referred to must be the Lord’s Supper 

and we are thus reminded that even the Lord's Supper was 
not a mere memorial of Christ’s farewell meal, but com- 
memorated the new covenant and the price which was needed 
for its ratification, the body broken and the blood shed upon 
the cross; and in declaring the Lord’s death until he came it 
at least suggested the thought of the resurrection. But I do 
not think we can infer from the words of Eusebius that the 
Passover consisted only of the Lord’s Supper; for he clearly 
implies that there was an annual festival which must have 
been distinguished in some way from the weekly service. He 
only extends the name to the Lord’s Supper because it was a 
constant memorial of the true Passover Lamb, and ought to 
be followed by the spiritual results which were symbolized Ὑ 
the Jewish ceremonial. 


1§7. 2 ὃ 11. 3. § 12. 


MEANING OF THE CELEBRATION 477 


4 A little earlier, Peter, bishop of Alexandria,! quotes from 
πὸ Trecentius the statement, “For we have no other purpose 
han to keep the memory of his passion, and at the time 
when those who from the beginning were eye- -witnesses have 
ng Ended down.”2 This description of the feast is not called in 
' aestion by the bishop, whose object it is to refute the view 
of Trecentius that the Jews were always in error, and that 
sven their ancient celebration of the Passover had nothing 
ἰς do with Christians. We may, therefore, accept this as 
another example of the indifference with which the feast was | 
described as a commemoration of the passion or of the 
resurrection. Going back for another century, we find that 
é fertullian, in recommending suitable days for baptism, 
connects the Passover with the Passion,? while he reserves the 
resurrection for Pentecost‘; but this is quite an incidental 
expression suggested by another subject, and can hardly be 
taken as a proof that the African Church did not com- 
m memorate the resurrection as well as the passion at their 


ik 


assover. 

We must now turn to the Quartodecimans. We have 
already seen that the only point of controversy between them 
nd the rest of Catholic Christendom related to the day of 
celebration. We might, therefore, infer that they too kept the 
Passover in memory of the passion and resurrection ; and this 
inference is confirmed by such evidence as we possess. Accord- 
in ng to Eusebius, in whose time, we must remember, the 
ΟΜΝ was still agitating the Church, the Quarto- 
a imans kept the Feast of the Passover on the day on which 
the Jews were commanded to kill the sheep, and thus termin- 
ated the fast without regard to the day of the week, whereas 


1 Appointed 300 A.D. 2 Chron. Pasch., p. 7- 
8 Cum et passio domini in qua as danas adimpleta est. 
4 De Baptismo, 19. 


y 


478 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


the rest of Christendom thought the fast ought not to be 
broken except on the day of the resurrection, and a deer 2 
was issued by letters from various synods that the myste y 
of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead should not k 5 
celebrated except on the Lord’s Day, and on this day alone 
they should bring the fast to an end! Here it is evident 
that in the Church at large the memory of the resurrectio n 
was an essential part of the celebration; and it is equall y 
clear that it was so with the Quartodecimans, for the point of 
the objection to them is not that they confined their com- 


memoration to the Last Supper or to the passion, but that 
they broke the fast, and thereby commemorated the resur- 
rection too soon. No doubt the killing of the sheep reminded 
them as well as their opponents of the passion; but of a 
commemoration of the Last Supper of which Jesus partook 
with his disciples there is not a hint. Theodoret, in his very 
brief article on the Quartodecimans, says that they kept “th 2 


p) 


Feast of the Passover” on the fourteenth day of the moon, 
and, having misunderstood the apostolic tradition, did not 
await the day of the Lord’s resurrection but celebrated “the; 
memory of the passion” on whatever day of the week the 
fourteenth might fall? He might seem here to distinguish) 
the memory of the passion from that of the resurrection, and 
to ascribe only the former to the Quartodecimans. But I do 
not think this is intended; for it in no way affects the point 


of his objection, and the one really included the other. He 


makes it probable that it referred to the joyful as well as 
the mournful part of the closing scenes of Christ’s earthly 
life ; and it was quite as inappropriate to celebrate one as the 
other on any day of the week indiscriminately. In any cas 5 
there is no reference to the Last Supper. 4 


ps Sen Cee eS 2 Heeret. fab. comp., iii. 4. 


ΣῈ." 


DISPUTE ONLY ABOUT THE DAY 479 


‘ We must turn, however, to such contemporary evidence as 
we possess. This fully confirms the representations of 
Eusebius. Polycrates, in his letter, speaks simply of keeping 


ἃ particular day, and not only makes no allusion to any 
difference of meaning attached to the day, but says expressly 
that in keeping it they transgressed in nothing, but followed 


“according to the rule of the faith.” We have not the words 


of Victor’s decree of excommunication; but from Irenzeus’ 


| 
, 

letter of remonstrance we may safely infer that it was based 
solely upon the difference in the time of observance. Irenzeus 
_concedes that the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection ought to 
be celebrated only on the Lord’s Day, clearly implying that 
this was the point in dispute. He then informs Victor that 
this was not the only subject of debate; again, I think, 
‘implying that this was the only one of which the Roman 
bishop had taken notice. What other source of variation, 
then, does he mention? Not a difference in the character of 
the celebration, not a difference in the events which were 
commemorated, but only a variety in the length of the 
preceding fast. This did not interfere with the communion 
of the churches, but only confirmed the harmony of the faith. 
Eusebius gives us only portions of the letter; but the 
‘implication clearly is that in like manner the observance of 
this day rather than that ought not to interrupt communion. 
He supports this argument by an appeal to history. He says 
that the Roman bishops from Xystus! to Anicetus,? though 
not themselves observing, nevertheless maintained communion 
with those who did observe*; and when Polycarp visited 
_Anicetus, though neither could persuade the other to depart 
_ 2 About 115 aD. 2 Died about 166. 

_ 8 Ἐτήρησαν, μὴ τηροῦντες, etc., have no object expressed ; but it seems 


Ἷ evident from the whole scope of the epistle that the fourteenth day must 
be understood. 


} 


480 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


from an ancient custom, the latter permitted the former to 
celebrate the Eucharist in the church. Finally, the only part 
of the epistle from the bishops of Palestine which Eusebius" 
thinks it necessary to quote contains an assurance that “in 
Alexandria also they celebrate on the same day as we do,’ 
as had been learned by an exchange of letters. 

Thus all our evidence combines to show that the whole con-_ 
troversy turned upon the day on which the Passover should” 
be celebrated, and here the question lay, not between two 
consecutive days of the month, but between a fixed day of 
the month and a fixed day of the week. ‘ 

We must now review the arguments which were advanced 
on each side, so far as the fragments which have come down 
to us will enable us to do so; for we shall thus gain a clearer 
insight into the nature of the controversy, and test the modern 
allegation that the Quartodeciman practice was founded on~ 
the Synoptic chronology, that of the rest of the Church on 
the Johannine. 

First of all, appeal was made on both sides to tradition. 
The Asiatics appealed to the example of Philip of Hier- | 
apolis, one of the twelve apostles, John of Ephesus, who 
leaned on the breast of the Lord, and an unbroken succession 
of bishops!; and, according to Irenzeus, this appeal was made 
by Polycarp, when he visited Rome, and found there a 
different custom from his own.? On the other hand, the 
Roman Anicetus appealed only to the custom of the Presbyters 
who preceded him; and it is remarkable that Irenzus, while 
agreeing with the Roman custom, traces it back only to the 
time of Xystus. It is not till a much later period that we 
hear of a western reliance on the apostles Paul and Peter.’ 
Eusebius tells us that the bishops of Palestine, at the time of 


1 Letter of Polycrates. 2 Letter to Victor. 
3 Socrates, v. 22. Sozomen, VII, xix. I. ; 


ty 


THE ARGUMENTS EMPLOYED ~— 481 


_ the controversy with Victor, referred to the tradition which 


: had come down to them from the succession of the apostles. 


' Socrates seems to treat all these traditions as of little value, 
because none of the combatants could produce a written 
_authority.!. I think this is almost an unreasonable scepticism 
| in regard to the statements of Irenzus; but however this 


may be, it seems evident that before the controversy broke 


out the different customs had become established, and were 
followed as a matter of course till they were challenged from 


_ the outside, and then appeal was made in the first instance to 


tradition, and only afterwards more elaborate arguments were 
sought for to justify a practice which had become intertwined 
with the religious affections of the people.” 

When arguments were at last resorted to, it is impossible 


_ to say in what order they were devised and marshalled; but 


we may conjecture that recourse would be had in the first 


instance to the Jewish law. The festival was, by universal 


consent, the Passover; and about the observance of the 


_ Passover very precise directions were given in the law of 
~ Moses. Accordingly, Pseudo-Tertullian tells us that Blastus 
(ὦ Quartodeciman Montanist in Rome) affirmed “that the 
_ Passover ought not to be kept except in accordance with the 


law of Moses on the fourteenth of the month.”* Hippolytus 
too refers to the Quartodecimans’ regard for what was 
written in the law, that he should be cursed who did not 
keep the commandments‘; and Epiphanius chides them for 
1 Th. 
2 In regard to the Palestinian appeal to the apostles I may venture to 
suggest that the apostles were not very likely to adopt the somewhat 


complicated Roman mode of reckoning Easter, or to depart from the Jewish 
day of celebrating the Passover ; but having kept the Passover at the usual 


_ time in memory of the passion, they may have observed the following 


Sunday with peculiar solemnity in memory of the resurrection. Thus a 


_ starting-point would have been supplied for divergent practices. 


3 Adv. omn. heer., ἃ 8. | 4 Ref., viii. 18. 
321 


482 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


making use of the saying in the law, “Cursed is he who shall 
not keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month.” ' 
These precise words are not found in the Old Testament, but 
they are contained inferentially in the curse against all who — 
did not observe the law.” 
The reply to this argument was easy: it would carry the © 
Quartodecimans a great deal further than they were willing — 
to go. They would be cursed if they were not circumcised, if — 
they did not pay tithes, if they did not bring offerings to — 
Jerusalem.? As the Apostle had said, they would be debtors — 
to do the whole law, if they bound themselves to one ᾿ 
commandment. The true Passover had come, and was ΠῸ 
longer to be kept in the letter. The Jewish ceremonies were ~ 
only a shadow of things to come, and now that Judaism had — 
been changed into Christianity, the literal and typical rites of 
the Mosaic law had ceased. It was not the purpose of the 
Saviour or his apostles to legislate about feast days, but to 
introduce an upright life and piety. And if the Quarto- — 
decimans thought that they ought to follow the Jewish ~ 
practice because Christ did so, then they ought to do every- — 
thing else which he did in a Jewish fashion.6 We must πού, 
however, conclude from this mode of reply that the opponents © 
of the Quartodecimans had detached their feast from the — 
Passover, and become indifferent to the ancient law, but only — 
that they were willing to interpret it with a certain latitude — 
of meaning. As the writer of the Paschal Chronicle says, 
the typical Passover came to an end through the death and 
resurrection of Christ, the true Passover; and in memory of 


Pa ee ee ee 


1 Her.,.J. 1. 5 See also the account of Sabbatius in Socrates, vii. 5. 

3 Epiph., ἐδιά., 2. * Hip., ibid. 

5 Euseb. in Mai, § 1 ; Socr., v. 22, near beginning, See also a “ Discourse 
on the Resurrection ae ἀεί ” attributed to Epiphanius (Migne, column ~ 
468 sg.), and Aphraates, Hom., xii. 4. 

δ Socr., tbhid. See also Gieron. Pasch., pp. 12, 16. 


THE ARGUMENTS EMPLOYED 483 


_ this event the Church of God kept the holy feast every year, 
_ “observing without error the fourteenth day of the first lunar 
| month, in which the legal Passover has been ordered to be 
celebrated, after the advent of the day in which the Holy 
. Spirit taught that the spring equinox begins”; and if this 
_ happened to be Sunday or any succeeding day of the week, 
the feast of the resurrection was kept on the following 
Sunday. Thus the fourteenth day of the month, that is to- 
say, the full moon at or after the vernal equinox, was care- 
fully noted by the westerns as the indispensable basis of their 
calculations, and they thus showed their regard for the law, 
although they departed from its letter. This account is 
substantially confirmed by Eusebius some centuries earlier. 
In his treatise on the Passover he gives a brief description of 
its original institution, as the source of the Christian observ- 
ance, of which it was typical?; and in none of the replies 
to the Quartodeciman argument is it maintained that the 
Christian feast was not ‘the Passover, and was in no way 
dependent on the ancient commandment. 

Why, then, it may be asked, was not the fourteenth day 
universally observed? For if the day was a matter of in- 
difference, it would have been most natural to adhere to the 
established custom. The change was partly owing to con- 
tempt for the Jews, and a wish to be dissociated from them 
as much as possible—a state of mind which finds strong ex- 
pression in the letter of Constantine. I can hardly suppose, 
however, that this was really operative in the first instance, 
and much better reasons existed. Among the Jews, it is 
alleged, certain irregularities had arisen. In order to bring 
the lunar year into agreement with the solar it was necessary 


1 Pp. 15 sq., 18 86. 
2 Mai, 88 1 and 6-7. See also Epiph., Her., 1. 2, and Aphraates, Hom., 


xii. §§ 1-4. 


484 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


periodically to intercalate a month. In consequence of this — 
the determination of the equinox was sometimes neglected, so 


that, when the year was reckoned from one vernal equinox to 
another, the Jews sometimes celebrated two Passovers in one 
year, and none in the next. To keep the Passover in this 


i ate aaa sem ΕΙΣ 


way before the equinox was a violation of the law; and it 
was contended that, though the Jews in ancient times had 
observed the correct time for the feast, they had ceased to do 
so from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem under 
Vespasian ; or, according to another opinion, from the date οὗ 
the crucifixion. There was, therefore, a real reason for ; 
refusing to follow the Jews in their time of celebration, even 
on the part of those who considered themselves bound by the 
commandment; and Socrates tells us that this led to a | 
division among the Quartodecimans themselves, some thinking Ἶ 
that they ought to follow the Jews, whilst others maintained : 
that the Passover ought always to come after the equinox in 
the Roman month of April Here, then, was the first cause 
of divergence, the Quartodecimans for the most part adhering 
to the Jewish determination of the season; the westerns, who 
were accustomed to the solar year, universally celebrating the 
feast after the equinox. | 

This cause of divergence, however, is not mentioned in the 
earliest accounts, and it does not explain why the westerns 
departed from the fourteenth day. The reason for this may 
be gathered from the nature of the Christian festival, and is 
clearly stated by Epiphanius.? Regard was paid to three 


1 v. 22. On the general subject, see the same chapter; Sozomen, vu. 
xvii. 7 ; Euseb., edited by Mai, § 12; Constantine’s letter ; Epiph., Her., 
1. 3 (the words should be noted : παρατηρούμεθα μὲν τὴν τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην, 
ὑπερβαίνομεν δὲ τὴν ἰσημερίαν, φέρομεν δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἁγίαν κυριακὴν τὸ τέλος τῆς 
συμπληρώσεως" λαμβάνομεν δὲ τὸ πρόβατον ἀπὸ δεκάτης), ΙΧχ. 11 ; Peter of Alex. 
in Chron. Pasch., pp. 4 844. ; Dionysius of Alex. in Euseb., H. E., vii, 20; 
Const. Apostol., v. 17. 

4 Her. 1.3, lex: 11-12, 


THE ARGUMENTS EMPLOYED 485 


measures of time, the solar year, the month, and the week. 
_ The first decided the equinox, after which the festival must 
be held. The second fixed the fourteenth day, on which, 
under the law, the sheep was to be killed, and on which, 
accordingly, Christ was crucified. But a week was observed 
instead of a single day, partly because the sheep was set 
apart from the tenth day to the fourteenth, and partly 
because the events connected with the true Paschal Lamb 
were not limited to a single day, but comprised the resur- 
rection which took place two days after the passion. The 
fourteenth day, therefore, was comprised within the week ; 
_ but the breaking of the fast, and the celebration of the 
festival, were postponed till the Lord’s Day. If, however, 
the fourteenth fell on a Sunday, the feast was put off till 
the next Sunday. I cannot suppose that this was due 
merely to a wish to differ from the Jews; but it seemed 
only natural to dedicate the fourteenth to the memory of 
the passion, and therefore to include it within the period of 
the fast. There was also a further reason for postponement 
in the fact that the resurrection took place subsequently to 
the fourteenth. The writer of the Paschal Chronicle says 
that the postponement was made for two reasons: first, it 
would have been contrary to law to terminate the fast on 
the thirteenth, before the moon was actually full; and, 
secondly, it would have been unbecoming to carry on the 
fast into the Lord’s Day. It was therefore necessary to put 
off the celebration ; but then, as the number ten includes the 
number nine, so the later date includes the earlier. There is 
nothing in this explanation inconsistent with our oldest 
authorities, and it enables us to see how easily the conflicting 


1 Pasch. Chron., p. 424. For the dislike of the Jews see also 
Constantine’s letter. 
2 See Pusch. Chron. pp. 413 84.) 30 84. 3 Ρ, 30. 


486 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


usages arose. The Jewish festival passed into the Christian 
Church, and was kept in memory of the death and resurrection 
of Christ, the great redemptive work which was symbolized 
by the ancient deliverance from Egypt. Nothing could be 
more natural than the Asiatic adherence to the time pre- 
scribed by the law; and, on the other hand, as the Church 
became more and more Gentile, it was equally natural to 
modify the time in accordance with Christian memories, 
and keep the festival of the resurrection only on the Lord’s 
Day. The propriety of the latter observance constituted, as 
we have seen, the stress of the argument in the first instance. 

So far the arguments on each side have little or no bearing 
on the Gospel question; but we come now to an allegation 
which, if it could be substantiated, would lend some support 
to the opponents of the Johannine authorship. It is that 
the Quartodecimans relied on the Synoptic chronology, and 
rejected the Johannine, whereas the westerns adhered to the 
latter, and set aside the former. This contention appears 
to me to be founded on an entire misconception of the con- 
troversy, and not to be supported by the facts. In order that 
the argument might be valid, the dispute ought to have 
| been whether the Christian Passover was to be kept on the 
thirteenth or the fourteenth day of the month. Of such a 
dispute there is not a trace. The westerns, as we have seen, 
were as particular about observing the fourteenth of the 
month as the Quartodecimans themselves; only, instead of 
holding the feast on that day, they calculated from it the 
_ Sunday on which the celebration should be kept. The con- 
troversy, therefore, was not between adjoining days of the 
month, but between the day of the month and the day of 
the week, and consequently was in no way connected with 
the varying chronology of the Gospels. This being the case, 
it is not surprising that no allusion to different opinions 


OPINION OF IRENZUS 487 


Ἵ about the Gospels occurs in the histories of the controversy, 
and among the arguments contained in any connected 


_ treatise against the Quartodecimans there is no appeal to 


; the Fourth Gospel. This fact would be unintelligible if the 
_ westerns had really supposed that the Gospel of John settled 
i the question. It may be asked, then, What support is there 
: for the modern allegation? It rests on a few arguments 
i which have come down to us in complete isolation from 


their context; and as they relate to the date of the Last 


_ Supper, it has been assumed that they are parts of the 


en Oe halal 


Quartodeciman controversy. We must examine these, as 
well as some other statements on the same subject, and I 
believe we shall find that the difference of opinion about the 
evangelical chronology did not coincide with the separation 
between Western and Quartodeciman, but that defenders of 
both views were to be found on both sides, and that instead 
of admitting a discrepancy between the Synoptics and John, | 
they had, with hardly an exception, some way of forcing the 
Gospels to speak with one voice. 

Before we proceed to the fragments themselves, we must 
notice the opinions of a few well-known writers, that we 
may have at least a small body of assured fact on which to 
base our judgment of a more obscure question. Turning 
first to Irenzeus, we find a chapter in which he is specially 
defending the Johannine chronology against the opinion of 
the Valentinians, represented by Ptolemzus, that the ministry 
of Jesus lasted only for one year. He refutes this opinion 
by pointing out the number of Passovers which, according 
to John, the disciple of the Lord, Jesus had celebrated, and 


he assumes without remark that finally Christ went up to 


Jerusalem, ate the Passover, and suffered on the following 
day. Here, then, while appealing to the Fourth Gospel, he 


1 1. xxii. 3. 


lid 


488 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


tacitly assumes that in regard to the Last Supper and the 
crucifixion it. is in agreement with the Synoptics. This 
testimony is important because, as we know, Irenzus thought 
the Quartodecimans mistaken, and therefore, according to the 
hypothesis we are considering, he ought to have believed 
that Jesus partook of the Last Supper on the thirteenth, 
and was crucified on the day of the Passover; yet he gives 
not a hint that any difference of opinion on this question 
existed. It further deserves remark that, in connection with 
his whole argument, he appeals to “all the elders who in Asia 
had intercourse with John the disciple of the Lord.”! This 
surely proves that it was possible for Asiatics at once to 
acknowledge the authority of the Fourth Gospel, and yet to 
believe that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover. 
We should observe also that Irenzeus wrote a treatise on the 
Passover,” and was, therefore, in all probability quite familiar 
with the arguments current in his own day. I doubt whether 
Trenzus can have intended to contradict the foregoing plain 
statement in a later passage,? in which he represents the 
institution of the Passover as prefiguring the suffering of the 
Lord; for Christ might very naturally be regarded as the 
true Pascha, even if his death did not precisely coincide with 
the slaying of the paschal lamb. In any case the argument 
from the earlier passage remains unaffected. 

Origen, also, in commenting on Matthew xxvi. 17,‘ follows 
the Synoptical account, and this without any allusion to a 
different date in John, although he was keenly observant of 
differences between the Gospels. This is the more remarkable 
because he thinks it well to meet an argument which was 
founded on the Synoptical record. Owing to the fact, he 
says, that Jesus celebrated the Passover corporeally in the 


A Beg. 2 See Fragment vii. in Stieren’s edition. sa Jee. Se iP 
* In Matt. convmentariorum series, § 79, pp. 405 sqq. (Lom.). 


OPINION OF ORIGEN 480 


Jewish fashion, some of the inexperienced may fall into 
Ebionism, and maintain that we, as imitators of Christ, ought 
_ to do likewise. To this he replies that Jesus was made under 
_ the law, not in order that he might leave under the law those 
who were under it, but that he might lead them out of it. It 
_ was, therefore, unbecoming in those who had been previously 
outside the law to enter into it. Accordingly Christians came 
out from the letter of the law, and through a spiritual 
celebration fulfilled all things which were there commanded 
to be celebrated corporeally. They cast out the old leaven 

of malice and iniquity, and kept the Passover with the 
-unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, Christ feasting 

along with them according to the will of the Lamb, who said, 
_ “Unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye will not have 
" life abiding in you.” Here, then, we find the Fourth Gospel 
_ referred to, and Jesus represented as the Paschal Lamb, and 


που ΠΟΥ τς 


: yet not a hint of any error in the usual interpretation of the 
Ἢ Synoptic chronology. We must further observe that there is 
no allusion to the peculiarity of the Quartodecimans. The 
- question turns, not on the day of observance, but on the 
; manner of observance. The people who are corrected fall 
- into Ebionism, a reproach which was not brought against the 
Quartodecimans; for though they were thought to resemble 
the Jews too closely in one particular, they were recognised 
f as orthodox, and, as Eusebius says, when they gave way on the 
one question of the day of observance, they withdrew from 
_ the slayers of the Lord, and joined their fellow-believers, for 
nature draws like to like! And, again, one of the objections 
against the Quartodecimans was that, although they followed 
_ the Jewish reckoning, they did not carry out the legal 
prescriptions with sufficient care; for they confined their 
| celebration to a single day, whereas they ought to have chosen 
1 In Mai, § 8. 


See τ τ. 


490 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


the sheep on the tenth day, and so fasted for five days, thus 
conforming to the general practice of the Church im cele-— 
brating a whole week.! We learn, then, from Origen’s 
remarks, what we have already learned from the letter of 
Treneus, that the controversy about Easter was not limited 
to the Quartodeciman peculiarity. So important a division 
within the bosom of the Catholic Church brought the whole 
subject into prominence, and afforded an opportunity for 
broaching every kind of view. The legal requirements, the 
relation of the law to Christianity, the ceremonies to be 
observed, the narratives of the Gospels, the year of the 
crucifixion, and the days of the Last Supper and the death 
of Jesus, all came under discussion.2 We are not, therefore, 
warranted in assuming that there were only two compact 
parties, and that every argument and allusion must refer to 
the single point by which they were divided from one another. 
At one extreme were the men corrected by Origen, who 
thought they must adhere to the letter of the law. These 
were in all probability Quartodecimans, though we are not 
told so; but it does not follow that they were representatives 
of the orthodox churches of Asia Minor. At the other 
extreme we are told of one Aerius, a contemporary of 
Epiphanius, who maintained that Christians generally were 
clinging to Jewish fables, and ought not’ to observe the 
Passover, “for Christ our Passover was sacrificed.”? This 
view would fall in with the gnostic tendencies of the second 

1 Epiph., Her., 1. 1, 3, Ixx. 12. 

2 For the fullest examples of treatises on the Passover, see Euseb. in Mai, 
and the Hom. of Aphraates. I may refer also to the treatise of Irenzus, 
for we are told that he spoke in it of the practice of not bending the knee, 
and mentioned the feast of Pentecost, from which we may conclude that, 
though his work was probably called forth by the Quartodeciman contro- 
versy, it was not limited to the particular point in dispute. See Stieren, 


Fragment vii. 
3 Epiph., Her., lxxv. 3. 


OPINION OF EUSEBIUS 491 


eentury, but I have not observed any allusion to it at that 
period. Between these extremes came the Catholic Church, 
with its agreement about the general principles, and its 
internal division about the day of celebration. These 
varieties must be borne in mind in our subsequent investi- 
: | 
The opinion of Eusebius, which is fully explained in his 
ἜΝ is particularly interesting and important, because it 
; is given in connection with the Quartodeciman controversy, 
= his statement is clearly a reply to a Quartodeciman 
argument; and nevertheless he adheres to the Synoptical 


"-... The following is his mode of reasoning: “ But 


ae 


if anyone? should say that it has been written that on the 


first day of unleavened bread the disciples came and said to 
“the Saviour, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to 


ea 


‘eat the Passover? and he sent them to such a one, having 
enjoined upon them to say, With thee I keep the Passover, we 
will say that this is not a commandment, but a history of an 
event that happened at the season of the saving passion ; but 
: to relate an ancient practice is one thing, and it is another to 
legislate and leave injunctions for the future. But, further, 
the Saviour did not keep the Passover with the Jews at the 
ἕ time of his own passion; for he did not himself celebrate his 
“own Passover with his disciples at the time when they [the 

Jews] killed the lamb; for they did this on the day of 
_ preparation ® on which the Saviour suffered; whence neither 
did they enter into the pretorium, but Pilate comes out to 
them ; but he himself, a whole day before, on the fifth day of 
the week,‘ reclined with the disciples, and eating with them, 

said to them: With desire I desired to eat this Passover with 


1 In Mai, §§ 8-12. 
2 No doubt, from the connection, a Quartodeciman. 
3 That is, Friday. * Thursday. 


492 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


you. Dost thou see how the Saviour did not eat the Passover 
with the Jews?” Since the practice was new he desired it, 
but the old customs were not desirable, “but the new mystery 
of his new covenant, which accordingly he communicated to 
his own disciples, was, as we might expect, desirable to him, 
since many prophets and righteous men before him desired to 
see the mysteries of the new covenant.” The Passover of 
Moses was not suited to all nations, as it had to be celebrated 
in Jerusalem ; wherefore it was not desirable. But the saving 
mystery of the new covenant was suitable to all men, and 
naturally was desirable to him. After he had had the feast, the - 
chief priests laid hands upon him, for they did not eat the 
Passover in the evening; for otherwise they would not have - 
had time to interfere with him. They took him to Caiaphas, 
and then to Pilate, and then the Scripture says that they did 
not enter the pretorium that they might not be defiled. But 
on that very day of the passion they ate the Passover, 
demanding the saving blood, not on behalf of themselves, but 
against themselves. “But our Saviour kept his own desir- 
able festival, not then, but a day before, reclining with the 
disciples.” From that time Christ withdrew from the Jews 
and attached himself to his disciples. “Therefore we also 
ought to eat the Passover with Christ,” removing from our 
mind all the leaven of wickedness, and filled with the 
unleavened bread of truth and sincerity, having the true 
circumcision, and anointing the posts of our mind with the 
blood of the Sheep sacrificed for us; and this not at one period — 
of the whole year, but every week; and let our preparation 
be “a fast, a symbol of sorrow, on account of our former sins, 
and in memory of the saving passion.” The Jews fell from 
the truth from the time when they plotted against the Truth 
itself, driving from them the Word of Life; “and this the 
Scripture of the sacred Gospels presents clearly; for it 


OPINION OF EUSEBIUS 493 


testifies that the Lord ate the Passover on the first day of 


unleavened bread; and, as Luke says, they did not eat their 
customary Passover on the day on which the Passover ought 


to have been killed, but on the following day, which was the 


second day of unleavened bread, and the fifteenth of the 


‘moon in which, our Saviour being judged by Pilate, they did not 


enter the pretorium ; and therefore they did not eat it accord- 


ing to the law on the first day of unleavened bread, when it 


ought to have been killed; for they themselves, too, would 
have kept the Passover with the Saviour; but from that time, 
together with their plot against our Saviour, blinded by their 


own wickedness, they fell from all truth. But we celebrate 


‘the same mysteries through the whole year,” fasting every 


‘Friday in memory of the saving passion, and every 
-Lord’s Day quickened by the sanctified body of the same 
‘saving Passover, and sealing our souls with his precious 


blood. 


It was necessary to quote this passage at length, not only 


on account of its intrinsic interest, but because its position is 


‘completely misunderstood even by so careful a student as 
‘Schiirer1 He declares that Eusebius replies to the 
Quartodeciman argument that Christ really ate his own 


Passover on the thirteenth. There may be some little 


obscurity in the former part of the argument, which is all that 
Schiirer quotes ; but the concluding section is perfectly explicit, 
and clears up whatever might have been doubtful in the 


previous exposition. It will be useful to analyze the several 


thoughts. 
First, let us observe the nature of the Quartodeciman 
argument. It is not that the annual festival was ἃ com- 


memoration of the Last Supper, and that therefore it ought 


1 De cont. pasch., § v. 3. Belser falls into the same mistake in his article 


in the Theologische Quartalschrift, 1896, pp. 551 sq. 


2 pl τὴν 


494 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


to be kept on the same day as the meal it was designed tc 
bring to memory. It is that Jesus himself observed th ‘ 
Passover, and observed it correctly, on the fourteenth day of 
the month, and that therefore his disciples ought to do the 
same, instead of keeping their Passover on a day of the month 
which Jesus had never sanctioned. To this argument Eusebius 
makes two replies: First, he urges that though it was quite 
true that Jesus had kept the Passover at the time alleged, an” 
historical record did not constitute a commandment: in other 
words, the mere fact that Jesus celebrated his Passover on a 
particular day did not create a binding rule for his disciples. 
Secondly, although he adhered to the legal day, nevertheless 
he did not eat his Passover with the Jews; for they post- 
poned their observance till the next day, the second day of 
unleavened bread, and the fifteenth of the month, and so fell 
away from the truth. To appreciate the force of this argu- 
ment we must remember that one of the reproaches against 
the Quartodecimans was that they kept the feast at the same 
time as the Jews, and one of the objections made to this 
practice was that the Jews had got wrong in their calculations, 
and that therefore Christians ought not to follow them. 
Here Eusebius dates their error from the year of the passion, 
and shows that Jesus kept a Passover of his own, apart from 
the Jews. This is proved first by the words recorded in 
Luke?!: “ With desire I desired to eat this Passover with you.” 
“ This Passover” was not the ordinary one, but that in which 
the mystery of the new covenant was instituted. It was only 
as new that it could be desired; for an old practice, which 
comes as a matter of course, is not an object of desire. And, 
further, Jesus desired to eat “with you,” with his disciples, 
and not with the Jews. Thus he separated himself from the 
Jews in the meaning which he attached to the festival. But, 


1 xxii. τς. 


OPINION OF CHRYSOSTOM 495 


ewe eam 
See 


secondly, he did so in regard to time likewise; for they kept 
the Passover on the wrong day. This appears from the fact 
that they had time to carry out their plot against Jesus, from 
their inability to enter the pretorium, and from Luke’s 
statement that the day of unleavened bread was the day when 
the Passover ought to have been killed, implying that it was 
‘not killed at the proper time. Thus it appears that Eusebius 
accepted the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels, and brought 
the Johannine account into agreement with it by pushing on 
the Jewish celebration of the Passover from the fourteenth 
to the fifteenth day of the month. 

The same view was taken by Chrysostom. He says: 
“The Sanhedrin passed the night in watching for the 
accomplishment of their foul purpose: for they did not even 
at that time eat the Passover, as St John says. What are we 
‘to say? Why, that they ate it on another day, and brake the 
law. Christ would not have violated the proper time,. but 
ὶ these men violated it, who were trampling on ten thousand 
laws. Boiling over, as they were, with rage, and having often 
attempted to slay him, and been unable, now that they had 
gotten him in their power, they chose even to give up the 
Passover the more surely to glut their murderous appetite.’ ? 


<a, 7. 

2 In Matth. Hom. 84: quoted by M‘Clellan, Fowr Gospels, p. 487 sq. 
(a few words are omitted, but the sense is given). In Hom. 81 he says, 
“But why did he keep the Passover? Showing by all means, up to the 
last day, that he is not opposed to the law.” The Greek is as follows :— 
Hom. 81 : Tivos δὲ ἕνεκεν τὸ πάσχα ἐπετέλει ; διὰ πάντων δεικνὺς μεχρὶ τῆς 
ἐσχάτης ἡμέρας ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἐναντίος τῷ νόμῳ: Hom. 84 : Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔφαγον τότε 
τὸ πάσχα, φησὶν, ἄλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο ἠγρύπνουν. εἰπὼν γὰρ, ὅτι πρωΐα ἐστὶν, ὃ 
Ἰωάννης ἐπήγαγεν᾽ οὐκ εἰσῆλθον cis τὸ πραιτώριον, ἵνα μὴ μιανθῶσι, GAA’ ἵνα 
φάγωσι τὸ πάσχα. τί οὖν ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ; ὅτι ἐν ἑτέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ἔφαγον, καὶ τὸν νόμον 
ἔλυσαν, διὰ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τὴν περὶ τὴν σφαγὴν ταύτην. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν 6 Χριστὸς 
παρέβη τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ πάσχα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ πάντα τολμῶντες, καὶ μυρίους 
καταπατοῦντες vouous.... . τότε λαβόντες αυτὸν ἀπροσδοκήτως, εἵλοντο καὶ τὸ 
πάσχα ἀφεῖναι, ὑπὲρ τοῦ τὴν φονικὴν αὐτῶν ἐμπλῆσαι ἐπιθυμίαν. 


496 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


Epiphanius, when controverting the opinions of Marcion 


though he does not refer to the question of dates, sides with 
the Synoptics by insisting that Jesus must have eaten flesh, | 
because he kept the Passover which is according to law, or 
according to the Jews; and Marcion, he says, cannot escape 
from this argument by pretending that when Jesus said he 
wished to eat the Passover he referred to the mystery which 
he was about to institute, for it is expressly stated that he 
instituted the mystery “after he had supped.”! Epiphanius 
in this passage of course wishes to base his argument entirely 
on the parts of Luke which were accepted by Marcion; but he 
could not have honestly reasoned as he does unless he believed 
that the Last Supper was a real Passover meal celebrated in 
conformity with the Jewish law. Nevertheless in his article 
on the Quartodecimans he says: “It behoved Christ to be 
sacrificed on the fourteenth day according to the law.”? 
Here, then, it might be thought, he follows the Johannine 
account, and is induced to do so through his opposition to the 
Quartodecimans. This, however, is not the case. In his 
article on the Alogi he clears up the difficulty in a passage 
which, though a little obscure in some of its details, is plain 
enough in its general meaning. He is there dealing with the 
objection, not that the Last Supper was differently placed, but 
that there were more Passovers in the Fourth Gospel than in 
the others; and he maintains that the Jews kept the Passover 
before the right time, so that Jesus, although he ate “the 
Jewish Passover” with his disciples in order that he might 
not destroy the law, but fulfil it, was crucified on the 
fourteenth day of the month, and rose on the sixteenth, 
which in that year was the equinox. It was on the sixteenth 
that the sheaf was presented at the annual festival, and thus | 


1 Luke xxii. 20. See Her,, xlii., Refut. of Schol, 61 from Marcion’s 
Gospel. 2 £2: 


ay, 
r 


OPINION OF EPIPHANIUS: OF APHRAATES 497 


it prefigured the resurrection of him who was the first-fruits 
of the dead. This anticipation of the proper time for the 


_ Passover was due to the nature of the lunar month, which 
_ necessitated the periodical intercalation of days and months 


_to keep the calendar approximately correct.1 Thus Epi- 
_ phanius brings the sacrifice of the true Paschal Lamb to the 
_ proper day of the month, not by availing himself of the 
apparent Johannine chronology, but by assuming that the 


_ Jews had got a day in advance; and we may fairly assume 


_ that he saw no discordance between John and the Synoptics. 


_ The Quartodecimans are refuted on quite other grounds. 


A fragment of a chronicle wrongly ascribed to Eusebius, but 
probably proceeding from one Severus, also maintains the 


_ Synoptic dates, although it accepts the Johannine view of the 


length of the ministry. The writer says that three years 


elapsed between the baptism and the crucifixion, and that 


our Lord ate the shadowy Passover with his disciples, and 
introduced the authentic one on the fifth day of the week, 


which was the fourteenth of the moon, and the twenty-second 


of March; that on the night between that and the twenty- 


' third he was betrayed, and having been crucified rose again 
on the twenty-fifth. No notice is taken of any apparent 


inconsistency between the Gospels. 


Aphraates likewise assumes that “our Redeemer ate the 
Passover with his disciples on the usual night of the four- 
teenth.”* Nevertheless the Christian Passover was distin- 


fil, 26,27, 31. 

2 See the Fragment in Dindorf’s Chron. Pasch., ii. p. 112. 

3 Hom., xii. 4. The Doctrine of Addai, however, follows John’s 
chronology, for it says, that when Christ’s work was finished, and he was 
going to his Father, Abgar’s messenger, Hannan, “entered Jerusalem on 
the twelfth day of Nisan, on the fourth day of the week” (Phillips, p. 3). 


_ This makes Friday, the day of the Crucifixion, the fourteenth day of 


Nisan. 


32 


498 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


guished from the Jewish by the fact that the latter was 
kept on the fourteenth of Nisan, whereas the Christian “day — 
of the great passion is the Friday, the fifteenth of Nisan,” ᾿ 
that being the day on which believers were redeemed ἔτος 


the service of Satan, as the Israelites had been from subjection 


to Pharaoh It appears, then, that in the far East ὑπὸ 


Passover always began on the same day of the month, unless 


vette pase 


indeed that happened to be a Sunday, when the celebration ~ 


was postponed till Monday”; and so far there was an 
agreement with the Quartodecimans. But the day was the 


fifteenth, and not the fourteenth, and this day was fixed — 


by the Synoptic chronology. The whole week, however, 


was celebrated in accordance with the law which prescribed — 


the feast of unleavened bread, and the great feast day was 
the Friday. Here there is an approach to the western 
custom of giving the preference to the day of the week. We 
ought further to observe that Aphraates does not connect 
the feast in any way with the resurrection. In this state- 
ment, then, we have not only another illustration of the 
various ways in which the Passover was regarded, but a 
valuable light upon the kind of argument which a Quarto- 
deciman might use. If the latter reasoned in the same way 
as Aphraates he could defend the observance of the fourteenth 
only by an appeal to the Fourth Gospel. We shall see that 
an Asiatic bishop, Apollinaris, did appeal to the Fourth 
Gospel to prove that the crucifixion took place on the 
fourteenth, and that he was, in all probability, a Quarto- 
deciman. | 

It is therefore abundantly proved that there were writers 
on the anti-Quartodeciman side who accepted the Synoptic 
account in its plain meaning. Before proceeding to writers 
who, in dealing with the Easter question, defend the 

1 8 6, 3 8 8, 8 88 6 and B. 


, 
oa 
fa 
4 

5 


OPINION OF JUSTIN: OF TERTULLIAN 4099 


_ Johannine view as it is now generally understood, we must 


notice two other testimonies which are given independently 


of that problem, one being doubtful and the other opposed 
to the view which we have thus far presented. Justin Martyr 


says, “Christ was the Passover, who was sacrificed after- 


_ wards,! as also Isaiah said, He was brought as a sheep to the 
slaughter. And it has been written that on the day of the 


͵ 


Passover you seized him, and similarly in the Passover 
crucified him.”? 1 think Justin might have used these 
words whichever view he adopted. If he referred to the 
Fourth Gospel, then he not only knew it, but accepted it as 
an authoritative document. On the whole, however, it seems 


more likely that he followed the Synoptics, and, if so, then 


it is clear that in the middle of the second century the 


| belief that Christ was crucified on the fifteenth of the month 


did not interfere with the conviction that he was the true 
Paschal Lamb. 
Tertullian, having stated that Moses predicted the sacrifice 


of the Lamb by the people of Israel, proceeds: “ He added 
that it is ‘the Passover of the Lord’ >; that is, the passion of 
Christ. And this also has been so fulfilled that on the first 
day of unleavened bread you put Christ to death.”* The 


day on which the lamb was killed is called “the first day of 
unleavened bread” in Matt. xxvi. 17; and that this is the 


day which Tertullian meant is expressly stated in an earlier 


passage, in which he says that the passion was completed 
“on the first day of unleavened bread, in which they killed 
the lamb towards evening.”® The curious thing about this 
statement is that Tertullian quotes the words of Matthew 
which distinctly refer to the day before the passion, and 


1 He has just referred to the original Passover in Egypt. 
2 Dial., 111. δ Bix, wae ΤΙ, 
* Adv. Jud., το. ES 6: 


500 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


follows the Synoptics in assigning only one year to the}}; 
ministry, saying that Christ was about thirty when he} 
suffered! In what way he harmonized these views does not 
appear. , 

We come now to the fragments preserved in the Paschal 
Chronicle which have played such a conspicuous. part in the} 
inquiry into the nature of the Quartodeciman controversy, 
and to assist our judgment of the meaning and value of these ἢ 
fragments it will be advantageous to summarize the arguments } 
which we have found in treatises of which the complete 
context is before us, and several of which expressly relate } 
to the question about which the Catholic Church was so 
seriously divided. The question was whether Christians 
ought to keep the Passover at the same time as the Jews, on 
the fourteenth of Nisan, whatever day of the week that 
might be, or only on Sunday, the Sunday being that which 
followed the first full moon after the vernal equinox. In 
favour of the western practice it was urged that it was 
supported by apostolic tradition; that the feast of the re- 
surrection ought not to be kept before Sunday; that the 
law, being only typical, was not to be kept in the letter; 
that the record that Jesus kept the Passover on the four- 
teenth did not constitute a commandment; that he himself was 
under the law in order to bring men out from under the 
law”; that the Quartodecimans, though so strict about the 
day, did not keep the law properly; that the Jews had 
got wrong in their calculations, so that their Passover was 
sometimes before the equinox; that Jesus did not eat the 
last Passover with the Jews, because the Jews broke the 
law, and postponed their celebration; and, finally, that 


8, 
2 This may be included as appropriate, though actually said in relation 
to another point. | 


ἊΨ 


SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS 501 


Christians ought not to have any part with traitorous Jews, 
‘It appears, therefore, that from existing works we gain a 
pretty complete picture of the controversy, and yet we have 
not found a vestige of an appeal to the peculiar view of the 
Fourth Gospel Nay, we have found that Irenzus, Eusebius, 
and Epiphanius, who wrote against the Quartodeciman 
practice, adhered to the Synoptic account of the Last Supper, 
as also did Origen, Chrysostom, and probably Justin. The 
conclusion is inevitable that the appeal to the Fourth Gospel 
was not a salient argument; that those who make it are 
expressing an individual opinion, and not the opinion of a 
party; and that their object is not to exalt the thirteenth 
above the fourteenth of the month, which had nothing to do 
with the question, but to show that Christ, in the last meal, 
when the new covenant was instituted, was not associated 
with the Jews. We have seen that some writers on the 
western side do not deny or object to Christ’s recorded 
association with the Jews, while others get rid of it, not 
through an alleged anticipation of the Passover by Jesus, 
but through a postponement of it by the Jews. Bearing all 
- this in mind, we turn to the Paschal Chronicle. 
We must notice first the author’s own statements. His 
_ object, we must remember, is simply chronological, and he 
_ does not quote his authorities for the purpose of refuting the 
» Quartodecimans, but in order to confirm his own system of 
ealculation. He has to determine the correct paschal cycle 
and to ascertain the precise date of Christ’s death in order 
_ that he may reckon the first Christian cycle from that definite 
1 Photius, indeed (Bibliotheca, 115, 116), cites two anonymous writers, as 
saying that Christ did not keep τὸ νομικὸν πάσχα. One of the works is 
directed “ agaiust Jews, and the heretics with these, and those called Quarto- 
_ decimans.” It would seem, however, that the author appealed to the 


Synoptics ; for he points out that Christ did not use the lamb or unleavened 
bread, but ate ἴδιον μυστικὸν δεῖπνον. 


502 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


point. Now there were two sources of uncertainty: (1) the 


Jews may in the year of the crucifixion have kept the 
Passover in the wrong month; and (2) it was not agreed 
whether the passion took place on the fourteenth or on the 
fifteenth day. His first object, therefore, is to show that the 
Jews kept the Passover correctly until the destruction of 
Jerusalem under Vespasian, and for this purpose he quotes 
Philo, Peter of Alexandria, and Athanasius. Thus it was 
proved that the Passover at which Christ suffered was held at 
the proper time. The next question is: Was the moon full 


on Thursday or Friday? The crucifixion took place on | 


Friday. We learn from the evangelist John that Jesus as the 
true Lamb suffered at the Feast of the Passover, that is, on 
the fourteenth day of the month.” Accordingly the problem 
was to find the year, within certain obvious limits, in which 
the first full moon after the vernal equinox fell upon a Friday. 
In order to establish his thesis that Christ was crucified on 
the very day on which the Jews were to eat the Passover, he 


1 Pp. 3-10. It has been supposed that Athanasius refers in this extract 
to the Quartodecimans. He speaks of “contentious persons, who have 
invented for themselves questions, under the pretext indeed of the saving 
Passover, but in reality for the sake of their own strife, because seeming 
to be of us, and boasting to be called Christians, they emulate the acts of 
the traitor Jews.” “For,” he continues, “what sort of even plausible 
defence could be made for them since it has been written, ‘On the first 
day of unleavened bread,’ and ‘In which they ought to kill the Passover.’ 
But it was done properly at that time, but now according to what has 
been written, they do always err in their heart.” I hesitate about making 
use of this fragment, because even if Athanasius is attacking the remains 
of Quartodecimanism, which held out against the decision of the Nicene 
Council, it does not follow that his argument would be applicable to the 
orthodox Quartodecimans of an earlier time. Still it deserves notice that 


his conclusive argument is an appeal to the Synoptics, and that the only — 


thing that this appeal can refute is the opinion that not the Last Supper 
but the crucifixion itself took place on the day of the Passover. We have 


here some indication that the Quartodecimans of the fourth century relied 


upon the chronology of the Fourth Gospel to justify their practice, 
2 P. 10 sq. 


VIEW OF PASCHAL CHRONICLE 503 


: appeals first to the familiar texts in the Fourth Gospel; and 


; to guarantee the correctness of the reading he refers to “the 
accurate books, and the very autograph of the evangelist, 


_which has been kept till now by the grace of God in the 
_ most holy church of the Ephesians, and is there worshipped 


by the faithful.”1 Next he adduces the testimony of Paul, 


“Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us,’ and not as some, 


carried away by ignorance, affirm that he was betrayed when 


he had eaten the Passover; which neither have we learned 


_ from the holy Gospels nor has any of the blessed apostles 


handed down to us anything of the kind.” On this statement 
we must remark that the Synoptic Gospels are represented as 
agreeing with the Johannine, that there is no mention of 
Quartodecimans, and that among the men “carried away by 


_ ignorance” we have found several of the most learned theo- 


logians on the anti-Quartodeciman side. Our author, it is 


_ true, assumes that the fathers are in agreement with him, and 


- out of “much testimony of the holy fathers of the Church” 


proceeds to quote, as a “few” samples, passages from Hippo- 


_ lytus, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Clement of Alexandria. 


_ These writers, therefore, are not cited in connection with the 


_ Quartodeciman controversy, and their relation to it can be 


_ learned only from their historical position, and from the 


_ evidence afforded by the extracts themselves. In a later 


portion of the work our author adduces an argument from the 
Synoptic Gospels. It is clear, he says, that Jesus did not 
keep the Passover on the fourteenth, but celebrated the 
typical supper before this, when the sanctification of the 


_ unleavened bread and the preparation of the feast took place, 


for he did not give his disciples the sacrificial lamb and un- 


_ leavened bread, but bread and a cup.” 


Ὶ 
4} 


1P,. τι, The same words are used in relation to the same text on 
p. 411. 2 P. 409 sq. 


504 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


We will now take the extracts in their order. The first is 
from the Syntagma of Hippolytus, Agaznst all Heresies, and — 
is as follows: “I see, then, that the affair is one of contentious- | 
ness; for he says thus: ‘Christ kept the Passover at that — 
time on the day, and suffered; wherefore I ought also to do 
in the same manner as the Lord did.’ But he has been led 
astray, not knowing that at the time in which Christ suffered 
he did not eat the legal Passover; for he was the Passover 
which had been preached beforehand, and was made perfect 
on the appointed day.”' The person who is here attacked — 
was in all probability a Quartodeciman, and may have been 
Blastus, who is mentioned as such by Pseudo-Tertullian, 
Agammst all Heresies.” When the Asiatic custom was 
challenged, and it became necessary to seek for arguments to 
defend it, nothing could be more natural than to turn to the 
Gospels and show that Christ himself had kept the Passover 
on the day appointed by the law. This was allowed by some 
of the ablest of their opponents, and we have seen that there 
were different ways of getting out of the argument, the 
genuineness and authority of the Fourth Gospel being 
admitted all the time. Hippolytus, departing from the opinion 
of his master Irenzeus, disposes of the difficulty by denying 
the fact. It deserves remark that in his later work, the 
Refutatio, while he still thinks the Quartodecimans contentious 
he does not refer to this argument. Had he discovered that 
though it was put forward by Blastus, it was not commonly 
used by the Christians of Asia Minor ? ! 

The second extract is taken from the first book of Hippo- 


1 Ὁρῶ μὲν οὖν ὅτι φιλονεικίας τὸ ἔργον. λέγει γὰρ οὕτως" ἐποίησε τὸ πάσχα ὃ 
Χριστὸς τότε τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἔπαθεν" διὸ κἀμὲ δεῖ ὃν τρόπον ὃ κύριος ἐποίησεν, 
οὕτω ποιεῖν. πεπλάνηται δὲ μὴ γινώσκων ὅτι ᾧ καιρῷ ἔπασχεν ὃ Χριστὸς οὐκ 
ἔφαγε τὸ κατὰ νόμον πάσχα. οὗτος γὰρ ἦν τὸ πᾶσχα τὸ προκεκηρυγμένον καὶ τὸ 
τελειούμενον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ ἡμέρᾳ. 


8 8, 


HIPPOLYTUS AND CLEMENT QUOTED τος 


i lytus’ work on the Passover: “That he did not speak falsely 
either in the first or in the last is evident, because he who 
long ago predicted, ‘I will no more eat the Passover,’ * 
assuredly took the supper before the Passover, and did not eat 
the Passover, but suffered; for not even was it the time for 
eating it.”* The interest of this passage is that it gives us one 
more glimpse into the way in which the Synoptics were 
harmonised with John, and proves that Hippolytus, at all 
events, had no intention of pitting one Gospel against the 
rest. 
We may notice next the two extracts from the work of 
Clement of Alexandria on the Passover, as they do not give 
rise to any controversy. He says that in former years Christ 
kept the regular Passover, but ceased to do so when he 
proclaimed himself as the Paschal Lamb. Accordingly he 
suffered on the fourteenth, and the chief priests and scribes 
did not enter the pretorium, that they might not be defiled, 
but might eat the Passover without hindrance in the evening. 
“With this exactitude of the days both the Scriptures all 
agree and the Gospels are in harmony. The resurrection also 
testifies to it; at least he rose on the third day, which was the 
first of the weeks of the harvest, in which it had been enacted 
that the priest should offer the sheaf.”* These passages call 


1 See Luke xxii. 16. 
2 Οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐσχάτοις ὡς οὐκ ἐψεύσατο πρόδηλον, ὅτι 6 
πάλαι προειπὼν ὅτι Οὐκέτι φάγομαι τὸ πάσχα εἰκότως τὸ μὲν δεῖπνον ἐδείπνησεν πρὸ 
τοῦ πάσχα, τὸ δὲ πάσχα οὐκ ἔφαγεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔπαθεν. οὐδὲ γὰρ καιρὸς ἦν τῆς βρώσεως 
αὐτοῦ. 
᾿ 9 Τοῖς μὲν οὖν παρεληλυθόσιν ἔτεσι τὸ θυόμενον πρὸς ᾿Ιουδαίων ἤσθιεν ἑορτάζων ὃ 
κύριος πάσχα᾽ ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐκήρυξεν αὐτὸς dv τὸ πάσχα, ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς πρόβατον 
ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἀγόμενος, αὐτίκα ἐδίδαξε μὲν τοὺς μαθητὰς τοῦ τύπου τὸ μυστήριον TH 
1, ἐν ἣ καὶ πυνθάνονται αὐτοῦ, Ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν ; 
ταύτῃ οὖν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ 6 ἁγιασμὸς τῶν ἀζύμων καὶ ἣ προετοιμασία τῆς ἑορτῆς 
ἐγίνετο. ὅθεν ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ εἰκότως ὡς ἂν προετοιμαζομένους ἤδη 
ἀπονίψασθαι τοὺς πόδας πρὸς τοῦ κυρίου τοὺς μαθητὰς ἀναγράφει᾽ πέπονθεν δὲ τῇ 
ἐπιούσῃ ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, αὐτὸς ὧν τὸ πάσχα, καλλιερηθεὶς ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων. 
᾿Ακολούθως ἄρα τῇ ιδ΄, ὅτε καὶ ἔπαθεν, ἕωθεν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς 


506 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


for only one or two remarks. We have seen that treatises on 
the Passover embraced a variety of subjects, and necessarily 4 
included the question of the day, which involved the year, οὗ. 
Christ’s death; so that there is nothing here which can even — 
suggest that Clement is arguing against the Quartodecimans. — 
Again, although he appeals to the verse in John, without 
which the case would be weak in the extreme, he nevertheless 
assumes that all the Gospels are in agreement. 

We are now prepared to criticise the fragments of 
Apollinaris’ work on the Passover. He says: “There are, 
then, persons who, owing to ignorance, are contentious about 
these things, being affected in a pardonable way; for ignor- 
ance does not admit of accusation, but requires instruction. 
And they say that on the fourteenth the Lord ate the sheep 
with the disciples, but himself suffered on the great day of 
unleavened bread, and they relate that Matthew speaks in 
accordance with their opinion. Hence both their opinion is — 
inconsistent with the law, and the Gospels seem, according to 
them, to be at variance.” The next extract from the same 
treatise is a rhetorical glorification of the fourteenth day of 
the month. “The fourteenth day,” he says, “is the genuine 
Passover of the Lord, the great sacrifice; the child of God 
instead of the lamb; the bound one, he who bound the strong 
man; and he who was judged, the judge of the living and 
the dead; and the one who was betrayed into the hands of 
sinners to be crucified, he who was exalted on the horns of 
the unicorn; and the one who had his holy side pierced, he 
who poured forth out of his side the two purifiers, water 
and blood, word and spirit, and was buried in the day of the 
τῷ Πιλάτῳ προσαγαγόντες οὐκ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον, ἵνα μὴ μιανθῶσιν, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἀκωλύτως ἑσπέρας τὸ πάσχα φάγωσι. ταύτῃ τῶν ἡμερῶν τῇ ἀκριβείᾳ καὶ αἱ γραφαὶ 
πᾶσαι συμφωνοῦσι καὶ τὰ εὐαγγέλια συνῳδά. ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις᾽ TH 


γοῦν τρίτῃ ἀνέστη ἡμέρᾳ, ἥτις hv πρώτη τῶν ἑβδομάδων τοῦ θερισμοῦ, ἐν ἣ καὶ τὸ 
δράγμα νενομοθέτητο προσενεγκεῖν τὸν ἱερέα. 


" 


Y APOLLINARIS 507 


τοὶ 


Passover, the stone being laid upon the tomb.”! The value of 


these extracts, in their bearing on the authorship of the 


Fourth Gospel, is supposed to consist in this, that Apollinaris 


is attacking the Quartodecimans, and alleges against them 


the date of the crucifixion which is found in the Johannine 
Gospel, whereas they rely upon Matthew in their defence 
of a custom which they inherited from the Apostle John. 
The inference is inevitable that they cannot have regarded 
as Johannine the Gospel which they controverted on the 
authority of Matthew. This argument appears to me to 
rest on a complete misconception. 

First let us suppose that Apollinaris was not a Quarto- 
deciman. It does not at all follow that he is attacking 


Quartodecimans; for he makes no allusion to the Quarto- 


deciman practice. The discussion of the date of the Last 
Supper necessarily entered into the question of Easter, and we 
have not hitherto met with any evidence of the prevailing 


-Quartodeciman opinion on this point. We have learned from 


Hippolytus that one Quartodeciman believed that Jesus ate 
the legal Passover at the time of the passion; but other 


Quartodecimans may have taken a different view. Accord- 


ingly, Apollinaris may be attacking the observers of the 


western custom like Ireneus. The simple fact is that the 


Opinion which Apollinaris advocates seems to have been taken 


1 Bist τοίνυν οἱ δι’ ἄγνοιαν φιλονεικοῦσι περὶ τούτων, συγγνωστὸν πρᾶγμα 


πεπονθότες ἄγνοια γὰρ ov κατηγορίαν ἄναδέχεται, ἀλλὰ διδαχῆς προσδεῖται᾽ καὶ 


c 


λέγουσιν ὃτι τῇ ιδ' τὸ πρόβατον μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν ἔφαγεν ὁ κύριος, TH δὲ μεγάλῃ 
ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων αὐτὸς ἔπαθεν, καὶ διηγοῦνται Ματθαῖον οὕτω λέγειν ὧς νενοήκασιν" 


ὅθεν ἀσὐμφωνός τε νόμῳ 7 νόησις αὐτῶν καὶ στασιάζειν δοκεῖ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ 


εὐαγγέλια. 
Ἡ 18’ τὸ ἀληθινὸν τοῦ κυρίου πάσχα, ἣ θυσία ἡ μεγάἄλη, 6 ἀντὶ τοῦ ἂμνοῦ παῖς 
θεοῦ, ὃ δεθεὶς ὁ δήσας τὸν ἰσχυρόν, καὶ ὃ κριθεὶς κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, καὶ ὃ 


παραδοθεὶς εἰς χεῖρας ἁμαρτωλῶν, ἵνα σταυρωθῇ, ὁ ὑψωθεὶς ἐπὶ κεράτων μονοκέρωτος, 


καὶ ὃ τὴν ἁγίαν πλευρὰν ἐκκεντηθεὶς ὁ ἐκχέας ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ τὰ δύο πάλιν 


: 


> 


a ee 


καθάρσια, ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα, λόγον καὶ πνεῦμα, καὶ ὃ ταφεὶς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ TH τοῦ πάσχα 
ἐπιτεθέντος τῷ μνήματι τοῦ λίθου. 


508 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


up with some eagerness about the end of the second century, 
being supported also by Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, 
and Tertullian. In later times it was defended by the 
unknown author of the Paschal Chronicle. But, in spite of : 
the charge of ignorance, it was rejected by Origen, Eusebius, ᾿ 
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and, I believe, by the later Church — 
generally... The necessary inference is that this particular — 
point did not affect the Quartodeciman controversy one way Ἶ 
or the other. If the Quartodecimans relied, as they might ; 
naturally do, on the fact that Jesus ate the legal Passover 
(of course believing, as so many have done since, that the 
Fourth Gospel was in harmony with the Synoptics), it was a_ 
tempting reply that he did not do so, as was proved by the | 
testimony of John. But this reply failed to establish itself, 
for the evidence of the Synoptics was too clear to be resisted ; 
and other means of rebutting the argument had to be tried. 
As we have observed, even Hippolytus does not venture to 
repeat it in his Refutatio, 

But, secondly, I see no evidence that Apollinaris was any- 
thing but a Quartodeciman. He was bishop of Hierapolis, 
and as Philip of Hierapolis is the first of the Asiatic 
luminaries mentioned by Polycrates, it is probable that it 
was still a Quartodeciman city, and had had a succession — 
of Quartodeciman bishops. We must add that Polycrates 
certainly implies that there was entire unanimity among the 
bishops in that region of the world. Schiirer relies upon 
the fact that Apollinaris is not mentioned in the list which 
Polyerates gives of distinguished Quartodecimans in his 
letter to Victor, though he was a celebrated man, while — 
some of those who are named played no great part in the - 


1 Some of the chronologists seem to have taken the same view as the 
writer of the Chron. Pasch. See an anonymous extract in Dindorf, ii, p. 
118, and another, in Latin, p. 222. 


ἡ APOLLINARIS _ 509 


‘Church But then Polycrates names only those who “have 
fallen asleep,” and does not give the names of the “multitudes” 
of bishops who came together to consider the question, and 
signified their approval of his letter. Among the latter may 
have been Apollinaris, who was a contemporary of Irenzus,? 
and would not have been a very old man at the time? 
Another item of evidence is furnished by the manner in 
which he speaks of those whose opinion he is combating. 
Hippolytus, living in the neighbourhood of Rome, might 
easily fall into contemptuous language towards men whose 
numbers and weight were not familiar to him; but it is not 
likely that Apollinaris, unless he was a singularly conceited 
and ill-tempered man, would use similar language about all 
his brother bishops, including men of the greatest learning 
and distinction. Eusebius tells us that Melito, bishop of 
Sardis, wrote two books on the Passover, and that these 
apparently were called forth by a discussion which arose at 
Laodicea about the Passover, at the time when Sagaris was 
martyred, in the proconsulship of Servilius Paulus. Of the 
nature of this discussion we are not informed; but as Sagaris 


and Melito were undoubtedly Quartodecimans, and as we have 


no intimation that the church of Laodicea was ever any- 
thing else, it seems probable that the subject of debate was 
not connected with the Quartodeciman practice. Clement’s 
treatise was occasioned by that of Melito, but we are not 
told that it was an answer to it. The work of Apollinaris 
may have had the same origin, or it may have been an 
independent contribution to the Laodicean discussion. But 
1 De cont. pasch., Wot: 2 Kuseb., H. £., iv. 21. 


3 We can only say that it is probable that he died before the end of the 
century, as Serapion, Bishop of Antioch at that time, refers to him as 


: though he belonged to the past—vyevouevov ἐν Ἱεραπόλει τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἐπισκόπου. 
- Quoted by Eusebius, H. E., v. το. 


EEE 


4 About 164-6. H. E., iv. 26. 


510 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


supposing that it was an attack on the universal practice 
of the catholic Christians of his country, is it likely that he — 
would venture to ascribe to contentious ignorance the opinion | 
of one of the most learned and orthodox bishops of his time? 
And if a man who set himself against the prevalent opinion — 
and practice obtained a bishopric at all, would not such action — 

have excited a storm, and made it impossible for Polycrates 

to assume, as he evidently does, that there was an unbroken 
unanimity in the Asiatic churches ? 3 

It is perhaps of small importance that Eusebius does not 
ascribe to Apollinaris any exceptional position; for he had 
not seen, and accordingly does not mention, his work on the ~ 
Passover. But if he had heard of any dissenting party in j 
Asia Minor, he would probably have noticed it; and we can : 
hardly suppose that in the remonstrance addressed to Victor — 
there would have been no allusion to this party, and no 
remark on his injustice in endeavouring “to cut off in the | 
mass the dioceses of all Asia, together with the neighbouring 
churches.” * 

Lastly, the glorification of the fourteenth day is just what 
we should expect in a Quartodeciman. If the fourteenth 
was the day in which the true Passover was sacrificed, and 
Christian redemption was brought in, surely that was the 
one day on which Christians ought to celebrate the feast. 
The only objection to this argument is the baseless hypothesis ~ 
that the Asiatic Passover was a commemoration, not of the 
passion, but of the Last Supper. That some Quartodecimans | 
distinctly professed to keep the feast on the day of the 
passion we learn incidentally from Epiphanius,? who tells us 
that they claimed to have found from the acts of Pilate 
that the Saviour suffered on the eighth day before the 
Kalends of April, and they wished to keep the Passover on 

1 Euseb., H. E., v. 24. 2 How’ Wt, | 


APOLLINARIS 511 


δ 
that day, whatever the fourteenth might be. Of course men 
who adopted such a custom really ceased to be Quartodeci- 
mans; and there is no apparent reason why Epiphanius classed 
them under that head except that they wished to keep the 
precise anniversary of the crucifixion. 

For these reasons, then, I believe that Apollinaris was a 
Quartodeciman ; and if so, we learn that Quartodecimans, like 
other Christians, were divided in opinion about the order of ' 
events in the closing scenes of Christ’s life. These conflicting 
opinions had nothing to do with the great question which 
Separated the two parties, except so far as they were dragged 
into it by individual writers. If a Quartodeciman believed 
that Jesus kept the regular Jewish Passover, what more 
natural than to appeal to his example; if he believed that 
Jesus, being himself the Paschal Lamb, was slain on the 
fourteenth, again what more natural than to appeal to this 
fact as marking the unalterable day for the Christian 
celebration? It is very probable that the majority on their 
side, as on the side of the western practice, accepted the 

Synoptic dates, which are far clearer than the Johannine, and 
in some way harmonized the latter with the former. The 
only distinct allusion to an inconsistency between the Gospels 
on this point is in the first fragment of Apollinaris; but he 
does not say that the men whose ignorance he attacks 
“maintained that the Gospels were contradictory, but only that 

according to their view they seemed to be so. This is, to his 
“mind, a conclusive argument, and it is pretty clear that he 
expects it to be equally conclusive to others. “The Gospels” 
‘ are evidently an accepted and authoritative collection, among 
which the thought of contradiction was inadmissible. No 
‘ doubt the ignorant men were quite ready to retort the charge, 
and it would be interesting to know how Apollinaris managed 
to explain away the unambiguous language of Matthew. This 


512 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 


practical ascription of infallibility to the evangelical records i 
in complete accordance with the results of our whole inquiry. 
The four Gospels had been long in possession of the field as _ 
the most authentic documents of Christianity, and as we have 
not found elsewhere, so neither can we find in the fragments — 
of Apollinaris, the minutest particle of evidence that the 
Christians of Asia Minor looked askance at the Gospel which — 
was ascribed to the beloved disciple whose traditions still ἱ 


"ἢ 
: ᾿ 
This long inquiry has had chiefly an historical interest ; ᾿ 


lingered among them. 


but im throwing light upon the nature of early Christian — 
practices, and on the mutual relations of parties, it has at the i 
same time shown how untenable is the argument which is 4 
derived from Quartodeciman usage against the Johannine ΄ 
authorship of the Fourth Gospel. The Feast of the Passover, 
as we have seen, was adopted by the Christian Church, with 
such modifications as circumstances rendered desirable or 
necessary ; and this being so, it was the most obvious and 
natural thing to keep it at the same time as the Jews, who 
were the custodians of the ancient law. John would follow 
the familiar custom; and although he would fill it with a 
Christian significance, and would probably, like Paul, recognize ~ 
in Jesus the true Paschal Lamb, by whose blood the new 
covenant between God and the world was sealed, he would 
see in this spiritual realization of a venerable symbol no 
reason for altering a time which was settled by ancient: 
prescription. On whatever day the crucifixion took place, it 
was associated with the Passover, and that festival, with its 
changed meaning and its deep-rooted memories of the 
Beloved, would be always dear to his heart, and, as it returned 
year by year, would bring him ever fresh messages of world- 
wide grace and truth. The “feast of the Jews” had become 
the feast of the children of God; and he himself had looked 


SUMMING UP 513 


bf upon the Lamb, and found in him a redemption from worse 
than Egyptian bondage. All this would have been easier and 
not more difficult, if Christ had been really crucified on the 
| very day of the Passover; but even if we reject this as 
- improbable, still we can see how the two events might become 
synchronous in thought, and the writer of the “spiritual 


Gospel,” in whose mind religious ideas are apt to clothe 
themselves in the form of visible facts, while the fact some- 
times melts away into its religious meaning, might place. 


together in his narrative two occurrences which, for him, were 


indissolubly associated. The appeal of some of his remote 
followers to our first Gospel, in support of a practice which 
was alleged to be his, affords no evidence against this view, 
for the Gospels, having been raised into a position of equal 


and divine authority, had become the hunting-ground of 


polemics, and such arguments do not supply the reason for the 
observance, but are the after-thoughts of controversy. There 
is no tradition that John was guided by any of the considera- 
tions which were evoked in later times; and there is no 


ground for supposing that his respect for the familiar day 
was challenged till long after he had departed from the 


world. I am forced, therefore, to the conclusion that this 
celebrated argument against the Johannine authorship of our 


Gospel rests on misconception, and, so far from being decisive 


of the question, does not possess the slightest validity. 


— 


33 


CONCLUSION 


WE have now gone carefully through the arguments against | 


the reputed authorship of the Gospel, and on the whole have 


found them wanting. Several appear to be quite destitute of 
weight; others present some difficulty; one or two occasion 
real perplexity. But difficulties are not proofs, and we have 
always to consider whether greater difficulty is not involved 
in rejecting a proposition than in accepting it. This seems to 
me to be the case in the present instance. The external 
evidence (be it said with due respect for the Alogi) is all on 
one side, and for my part I cannot easily repel its force. A 
considerable mass of internal evidence is in harmony with the 
external. A number of the difficulties which have been 
pressed against the conclusion thus indicated melt away on 
nearer examination, and those which remain are not sufficient 


to weigh down the balance. In literary questions we cannot 


look for demonstration, and where Opinion is so much divided 


we must feel some uncertainty in our conclusions; but on 


weighing the arguments for and against to the best of 


my power, I must give my own judgment in favour of the 
Johannine authorship. 


ae 3 


INDEX 


Notre.—‘‘The Gospel” means the Fourth Gospel. 


In the case of subjects 


extending over more than one page, only the first page is given. 


Aatt, Anathon, on the Presbyter John, 


206. 
on the relation of the Gospel to 
Philo, 24. 
Abbot, Dr Ezra, referred to, 47, 71, 
86, 269. 
Abbott, Dr Edwin A., on Aristion, 
198. 


on contradiction between John and 
Justin, 130. 
on John xix. 35, 393. 
referred to, 86. 
Abgar, 497. 
Accho, 432. 
Achelis on Martyrologies, 232. 
Acts of Disputation between Archelaus 
and Manes, 326. 
Acts of John, 343. 
Acts of Pilate, 377. 
Aenon, 3609. 
Aerius against observing the Passover, 


490. 
Agrippa Castor, 327, 331. 
?Ain- Fara, 370. 
‘Ain-Karim, 370. 
Akiba, 54. 
Alford on ‘‘ the high priest that year,” 


437. 
Allegorical interpretation, 31. 
Alogi, account of, by Epiphanius, 337. 
apparent date of, 340. 
argument against the Apocalypse, 


9. 
τῆς ἢ the Gospel and Apocalypse 
to Cerinthus, 337, 340. 
did not deny the early date of the 
Gospel, 82. 
estimate of Epiphanius’ account of, 


341. 


Alogi, exceptional view of the Gospel, 


9. 
insignificance of, 349. 
lived at Thyatira, 339. 
not a party in the Church, 335. 
on discrepancies between the 
Gospels, 77. 
on the title of the Gospel, 72. 
relation to Montanists, 335. 
said to be a party in the Church, 
, 334. 
Amelius, 342. 
Andreas quotes Papias, 236. 
Anicetus appealed to custom of Pres- 
byters, 480. 
visited by Polycarp, 449, 479. 
Annas, 434, 437. 
Antiochus Epiphanes, 353. 
Antiochus Palestinensis, 183. 
Antonia, 374. 
Aorist used as pluperfect, 436. 
Apelles, relation of, to Marcion, 290, 
his use of the Gospel, 291. 
Aphraates on the day of the Last 
Supper, 497. 
on the Passover, 460, 490. 
Apocalypse, place of, in the argument 
about Johannine authorship, 441. 
Apocryphal books, graphic, 376. 
Apollinaris of Hierapolis, his argument 
not against Quartodecimans, 
O7. 
ΚΕΝ a Quartodeciman, 508, 
referred to, 191, 498. 
wrote a work on the Passover, 


451. 
work quoted, 506. 
Apollinaris of Laodicea, view of the 
πνεῦμα in Christ, 127. 


516 


Apostolical Constitutions on the fast 
before Easter, 469. 
quotation of John iii. 3, 94. 
Aquila, 364. 
Ard el-Bethaniyeh, 431. 
Arethas, commentary of Cicumenius 
and, quotes Papias, 236. 
Aristion, 198. 
Aristophanes quoted, 392. 
Aristotle said to be the source of the 
doctrine of Basilides, 299, 302. 
"Askar, 433. 
Athanasius on the wrong observance of 
the Passover, 502. 
quotation of John 111. 3, 90, 92. 
Atoning efficacy in the blood of Christ 
in John and 1 John, 167. 
Attalus says God has no name, 130. 
Audians, Quartodecimans, 452, 465. 
treatment of the Passover, 469. 
Augustine, view of the duration of 
Christ’s ministry, 46. 
Axionicus, 269. 
’Ayntin, 369. 


Bacon on the re-arrangement of the 

Gospel, 405. 

on the reading ‘‘ the disciples of 
the Lord” in Papias, 197. 

on the silence of Ireneus, 241. 

on the title of Papias’ work, 195. 

Barcabbas, 327. 

Barcoph, 327. 

Barnabas, Epistle of, 256. 

Bar-Salibi, 342. 

Barton, G. A., on the Apocalypse, 442. 

Bashan, 431. 

Basilides, account of, in Hippolytus 
compared with that of Clement, 
300,315. 2. Ls 

account of, in Hippolytus more 
authentic than that of [renzeus, 
304. 

account of, in Ireneus demon- 
strably wrong, 312. 

account of, in Ireneus from a 
secondary source, 304. 

alleged deviations from better 
authorities, 322. 

authorities for the teaching of, 304. 

author of twenty-four books on 
‘the Gospel,” 331. 

comparison of Hippolytus’ account 
with his account of the Perate, 
318; with his account of the 
Sethians, 317, 325; with his 
account of the Valentinians, 


319. 
date of, 296. 
doctrine of, about the Passion, 312. 


INDEX ' 


Basilides, hypothesis of a forged source 
for, in Hippolytus, 316. 
qo from, in Hippolytus, 
296. 
reference to, in Acts of Archelaus 
and Manes, 326, 
strangeness of the system of, 329. 
Basilides, Bishop, on the end of the 
fast before Easter, 471. 
Batanea, 431. 
Baur adverse to Johannine authorship, 


believes that Tatian cites the 
Gospel, 82. 
thinks Justin used the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews, 100. 
Belser on date of Last Supper, 50, 52. . 
on Eusebius’ reply to the Quarto- 
decimans, 493. ᾿ 
on the expression “‘ the Jews” in 
the Gospel, 416. 
Bert, G., referred to, 461. 
Bertholdt favours authenticity of 
speeches, 39. 
Betane, 431. 
Bethany beyond Jordan, 367, 430. 
Bethany near Jerusalem, 367. 
Bethesda, 372. . 
Bethnimrah, 431. 
Bethsaida, 367, 432, 434. 
Bethzatha, 372. 
Betonim, 431. 
Blass on John xix. 35, 393. 
oe Quartodeciman Montanist, 
481. 
referred to, 504. 
Bleek defends Johannine authorship, 


9. 
favours authenticity of speeches, 


39. 
supports John’s account of Last 
Supper, 53. 
thinks John right about journeys 
to Jerusalem, 42. 
Boanerges, 409. 
Bonnet referred to, 344. 
Bousset on the Alogi, 336, 340. 
on John xviii. 24, 436. 
on the Presbyter John, 206, 211, 
225; 
Box, G. H., on the Last Supper, 52. 
Bretschneider on Aenon, 370. 
on date of Last Supper, 48. 
on John vii. 52, 439. 
Probabilia, 67. 
referred to, 39. 
thinks the Gospel independent of 
the Synoptics, 16. 
Brooke, A. E., referred to, 266, 
Brose on the Pool of Bethesda, 372. 


. 4 
᾿ 
Ἂ 
[ 
᾿ 
7 
Ϊ 


INDEX 


Burkitt on the statement that Papias 
wrote the Gospel from the 
dictation of John, 249. 

on Syrian tradition, 233. 

‘Butler, Dom, on Martyrologies, 232. 

Buttmann on the use of ἐκεῖνος, 390. 


CSAREA PHILLIPI, 432. 


_ Caiaphas, 356, 434, 437. 


: 


Cana, 366, 431. 

Capernaum, 366, 433. 

Cedron, 368. 

Celbes, 332. 

Celsus, 341. 

Cerinthus said to be author of the 
Gospel and Apocalypse, 337, 340. 

Chagigah, 52. 


Chapman, Dom, on date of Clementine | 


Homilies, 263. 
Charles IV., 458. 
Charteris, 236. 
Cheyne on Aenon, 370. 
Christ, representation of the person 
οὗ, 15, 421. 
Chronicle of Severus, 497. 
Chronicon Paschale ; 
Chronicle. 
Chronologists referred to, 508. 
Chrysostom follows synoptic chron- 
ology of Last Supper, 495. 
on John’s martyrdom, 234. 
on Luke xxii., 7, 50. 
on the subordination of John to 
Peter, 396. 
quotation of John iii. 3, 90, 91, 


see Paschal 


93; 94. 
Church, Catholic, testimony of, summed 
up, 262. 
Chwolson on executions at the Pass- 
over, 55. 
on the Last Supper, 49. 
on the signs of contemporary 
knowledge in John, 59. 
on uncleanness from entering the 
Pretorium, 53. 
on the use of np, 52. 
Cibyre, 342. 
Clement of Alexandria, account of the 
origin of the Gospel, 32. 
allegory, view of, 33. 
blends Matthew xviii. 
John iii, 3, 93. 
comment on Matthew xviii. 3, 
97. 
knew Apocalypse of Peter, 237. 
knew Preaching of Peter, 238. 
on the Passover quoted, 505. 
refers to ‘‘ Traditions of Matthias,” 
201. 
says God is without a name, 131. 


3 and 


517 


Clement of Alexandria, testimony about 
authorship of the Gospel, 74. 
testimony to the presence of John 
in Asia, 213. 
view of duration 
ministry, 46. 
wrote a work on the Passover, 
451, 505, 509. 
Clementine Homilies discussed, 263. 
knowledge of the Fourth Gospel, 


of Christ’s 


104. 

passage about regeneration, 88, 92, 
94, 103. ὁ , 
view of duration of Christ’s 


ministry, 46. 
Clementiue Recognitions, passage about 
regeneration, 89. 

Codex ‘‘ Baroccianus 142,” 196, 229. 
Codex Regine Suetiz, 249. 
Codex Toletanus, 249. 
Conder on Aenon, 369. 

on Bethany beyond Jordan, 431. 
Constantine on the dislike of the Jews, 


455. 
letter on the Passover, 452. 
on the meaning of the Passover, 475. 
on Quartodeciman practice, 463, 
468. 
Conybeare on the Armenian obser- 
vance of Easter, 459. 
on Holstein and the 
Chronicle, 461. 
quotes Armenian fragment on 
John, 233. 
Cootletoodra, 432. 
Corssen argues from the passage about 
the vines in Papias, 244. 
on the Acts of John, 343. 
on the date of Polycarp’s martyr- 
dom, 188. 
on the interpretation of John xiv. 
2 by the Elders, 248. 
on the silence of Irenzeus, 241. 
on the statement of Ireneus about 
the age of Jesus, 251. 
on the statement that Papias wrote 
the Gospel at the dictation of 
John, 250. 
refers to Victorinus, 236. 
rejects the idea of confusion 
between the Apostle and the 
Presbyter, 223. 
thinks Papias knew the Gospel, 


Paschal 


249. 
Cotterill against genuineness of Epistle 
of Polycarp, 183. 
Council of Nica on the Passover, 452. 
Credner favoured Johannine authorship, 
68 


on the Muratorian Canon, 78. 


518 


Cross, J. A., on detail in the Synoptics, 
378. 

Cumulative evidence, effect of, 346. 

Cunningham on _ the evidence of 
Barnabas, 256. 

Cyprian, quotation of John iii. 3, go. 

Cyril on Nicodemus, 102, 

Cyril of Jerusalem, 153. 


DALMAN on Gabbatha, 274. 
Date, evidence of, stronger than of 
authorship, 348. 
Davidson adverse to Johannine author- 
ship, 71. 
Deutsch on Haggadah, 31. 
Dialogue between Caius and Proclus, 
227. 
Diatessaron, date and character of, 82. 
See Tatian. 
Dionysius of Alexandria, date of, 341. 
on the end of the fast before 
Easter, 471. 
says some had ascribed Apocalypse 
to Cerinthus, 340, 342. 
thinks the Apocalypse not by the 
Apostle, 223, 441, 442. 
Docetz opposed by Justin, 126. 
Docetist quotation of John 111. 3, 90, 
94: 344. 
Doctrine of Addai on the day of 
crucifixion, 497. 
Donaldson on the doctrine of Justin 
Martyr, 114, 118, 121, 122. 
Dorner on the doctrine of Justin 
Martyr, 114, 122. 
Dressel, 263. ᾿ 
Ducange on Holstein and the Paschal 
Chronicle, 461. 
Dunleary, 432. 


EASTER, Roman observance of, 456. 
See Passover. 
Ebionites rejected Pauline Epistles, 242. 
used only Gospel of Matthew, 242, 
264. 
Edersheim on Chagigah, 52. 
on Sychar, 433. 
Egotism of speeches in the Gospel, 38. 
Elijah, 439. 
Elkosh, 439. 
Epictetus, style of Enchiridion, 360. 
Epiphanius on the Alogi, 72, 77, 336. 
on the character of the Gospel, 34. 
on the date of Last Supper, 496. 
on departure from fourteenth day 
at the Passover, 484. 
on observance of fourteenth day for 
the Passover, 484. 
on the Quartodecimans of his time, 


452. . 


INDEX 


Epiphanius on Quartodeciman appeal to 
the law, 481. . 
on Quartodeciman orthodoxy, 465. 
on the sheep at the Passover, 455. 
Epistle, First, of John, arguments 
against ascribing it to the 
Evangelist, 166. ᾿ 
attacks Docetic errors, 384. 
date of, relatively to the Gospel, 
176. 
evidence that it is the work of the 
Evangelist, 163. 
Epistle to Church at Philomelium calls 
Polycarp apostolic, 212. 
Ἔργα in John, 402. 
Euphrates the Peratic, 332. 
Eusebius, accuracy of, 237. 
argument against the Quartodeci- 
mans, 491. 
follows synoptic chronology of the 
Last Supper, 491. 
identifies Philip the Apostle with 
the Evangelist, 227. 
nature of testimony of, 238. 
on the festive character of the 
Passover, 466. 
on the law of the Passover, 483. 
on the meaning of the Passover, 
475: 
on Quartodeciman practice, 463, 
468. 
silence of, 236, 341. 
thought Ireneus mistaken about 
Papias, 202. 
thought the Jews kept the Passover 
on the wrong day, 493. 
treatise on the Passover, 463, 490. 
Evanson adverse to Johannine author- 
ship, 67. 
Ewald, Paul, referred to, 64. 


Fast before Easter, 449, 469. 
Felix, Governor of Alexandria, 85. 
Field referred to, 364. 
Flora, friend of Ptolemeus, 271. 
Florinus, Ireneus’ letter to, 208. 
Forgiveness in John and 1 John, 166, 
Franke, A. H., on Old Testament in 
the Gospel, 357, 363, 365. 
Furrer on Aenon, 370. 
on Bethany beyond Jordan, 431. 
on the Sea of Tiberias, 366. 


GABBATHA, 373. 

Gaius the Presbyter, 340, 342. 

Galilee, 433, 439. 

Galilee, Sea of, 366, 433. 

Gath-hepher, 439. 

Georgius Hamartolus quotes Papias, 
228. 


᾿ 
‘ 
ν᾿ 
δ 
" 
μ᾿ 
4 
RY 
4 
4 
᾿ 
εἰ 
a 


— 
ee er ψο 


a ἘΨΨ 


a tn Te 


Ὁ 


By 


INDEX 


Gieseler on the devil of Basilides, 325. 
referred to, 457. 
Goldsmith, monuments of, 224. 
Golgotha, 373. 
Gospel, Fourth, adverse to Marcion’s 
views, 289. 
analysis of, 3. 
and First Epistle of John, 163. 
anti-Judaic, 411. 
argument from 
character, 426. 
ascription of, to Cerinthus, not 
mentioned by Irenzus, 242. 
author an Aramaic-speaking Jew, 


its unhistorical 


352. 

author’s knowledge of topography, 
366. 

autograph said to be in Ephesus, 
503. 

comparison of, with the Synoptics, 


7. 
controversies of second century not 
alluded to, 382. 

delineation of Jesus in, 421. 

deviations from the LXX., 361. 

earliest view of, 32. 

graphic character of, 376, 379. 

Greek style, character of, 359. 

history of controversy about 
authorship of, 67. 

hypothesis that it is by a disciple 
of John, 394. 

Johannine authorship said to be 
irreconcilable with the char- 
acter of John, 409; with his 
views and education, 350. 

method of doctrinal teaching, 419. 

not adopted by later Marcionites, 
201: 

not historical in modern sense, 32. 

not known to be anonymous, 72. 

not philosophical, 418. 

Pharisees and chief priests, 356. 

portraiture of the people, 357. 

purpose of, 21. 

relation of, to the Old Testament, 
356. 

significance of its acceptance by 
heretics, 333. 

signs of an eye-witness, 375. 

speeches in, 16, 34. 

synoptic tradition assumed as 
known, 15; deviations from, 
against its acceptance, 381. 

unique in character, 1. 

universalism of, 35; Jewish in 
conception, 358. 

Grabe referred to, 266. 
Gregory Nazianzen on the festive 
character of the Passover, 466. 


519 


Gregory, St, referred to, 459. 
Grill, J., on Philo and the Gospel, 24. 
referred to, 71. 


HAGGADAH, 31. 
Hargrove, C., acknowledgment to, 
459. : 
Harnack on the Acts of Archelaus and 

Manes, 326. 

on the date of Epistle of Clement, 
216; of Ignatius’ martyrdom, 
189; of Papias, 195, 197; of 
Polycarp’s martyrdom, 188. 

on John xix. 35, 389. 

on John xxi, 23, 388. 

on Papias as a hearer of John, 220, 

on Papias’ source, 204. 

on the Presbyter John, 206, 235. 

on the statement of Georgius 
Hamartolus, 229. 

' on the statement that Papias wrote 
the Gospel at the dictation of 
John, 249. 

on Tatian’s Oratio, 83. 

thinks author of the Gospel a 
Palestinian, 359. 

thinks Papias knew the Gospel, 


249. 
Harris, J. R., on the passage about the 
vines, 222. 
on the ‘‘ Presbyter Gaius and the 
Fourth Gospel,” 340. 
referred to, 197. 
Haussleiter, 236. 
Hegesippus on the martyrdom of James, 
54- 
on Symeon, 217. 
Heinichen on the title of Papias’ work, 
195. 
referred to, 210. 
Henke, 41. 
Heracleon accepted the Gospel as 
John’s, 272. 
read ‘‘ Bethany beyond Jordan,” 


ae ne 
a Valentinian, 266. 
wrote a commentary on the 


Gospel, 266, 272. 
Heretics’ mode of treating the Scrip- 
tures, 242. 
Hermas, Shepherd of, perhaps recog- 
nised four Gospels, 255. 
Herod, 371. 
Hieronymus on an Easter tradition, 


472. 

refers to Papias on the Apocalypse, 
436. 

says Polycarp received the Apoc- 


alypse, 442. 
High priests, 435. 


520 


Hilgenfeld admits Justin may have 
known the Gospel, 87. 
adverse to Johannine authorship, 


69. 

editz fragments of Heracleon, 266. 

on Acts of John, 344. 

on Basilides’ doctrine of the devil, 

24. 

A ustin’s passage about regenera- 
tion, 98. 

on Justin’s phrase “his apostles 
and their followers,” 159. 

on Philip of Hierapolis, 227. 

on the statement that John was 
slain by the Jews, 228. 

thinks the saying that the ass was 
tied to a vine was from Justin’s 
imagination, 150. 

Hill, J. H., on Tatian, 406. 

Hillel, 55. 

Hippolytus’ account of Basilides com- 
pared with that of Clement, 
306. 

argument against his 
Basilides, 303. 
‘*Compendium ” of, 331. 
defended the Gospel, 342. 
departure from Ireneus in the 
account of Basilides deliberate, 
314, 322, 331. 
hypothesis that he used forged 
sources, 316. 
on the Naasseni and Perate, 332. 
on the Quartodecimans, 465, 481. 
on the Valentinians, 274. 
purpose of his Refutatio, 277, 301. 
reasons for thinking he quotes 
Basilides, 299. 
Syntagma on the Passover quoted, 
504. 
use of φησί, 297. 
work on the Passover quoted, 505. 
History, different views of, 29. 
Hebrew conception of, 30. 
History of Joseph the Carpenter, 377. 
Hittorpius, Melchior, on the Ordo 
Romanus for Easter, 456. 
Holstein on the Paschal Chronicle, 
461. 

Holtzmann against ascribing the First 
Epistle of John to the Evan- 
gelist, 164. 

on the confusion made by Irenzus 
between the Presbyter and the 
Apostle, 221. 
n ‘‘ high priest that year,” 437. 
on misplacements in the Gospel, 
408. 
on the Muratorian Canon and the 
Gospel, 224. 


quoting 


INDEX 


ι 


ar on a passage in Hegesippus, 


217. 
on the Presbyter John, 206. 
Homilies on Luke, quotation of John 
ili, 3, 90, 92. 
Hort on Acts of Archelaus and Manes, 


327. 
on the date of Justin, 85. 
on Hippolytus and Clement, 306. 


Ienatius, Epistles of, attack Docet- 
ism, 345. 
evidence of use of the Gospel in, 257. 
in different forms, 181. 
probable date of the genuine, 189. 
Iken referred to, 51. 
Ireneus’ account of Basilides demon- 
strably wrong, 312. 
connection with Asia, 208. 
describes the opinions of Ptole- 
meus, 267. 
failure to appeal to Papias, 241. 
follows synoptical chronology of 
Last Supper, 487. 
on the age of Jesus, 251. 
on the Asiatic John, 207. 
on the bad arguments of the Valen- 
tinians, 282. 
on the fast before Easter, 469. 
on the Quartodecimans, 449, 468, 


479. 

on rejecters of the Gospel, 335, 
340, 341. 

on Valentinus, 267. 

quotation of John 111, 3, 90, 92, 
94; 95. 

quotes Ptolemeus, 270. 

reading of John i. 13, 146. 

said to be mistaken in regard to 
John, 219. 

story about John and Cerinthus, 


409. 

testimony about authorship of the 
Gospel, 73, 243. 

used a secondary source for his 
article on Basilides, 304. 

view of duration of Christ’s min- 
istry, 46, 207. 

wrote a treatise on the Passover, 
488, 490. 

Isidore quoted, 325. 
referred to, 297, 300, 303, 304. 


JacoBl on Acts of Archelaus and 
Manes, 326. 
on the system of Basilides, 325. 
Jacob’s well, 368, 433. 
James, M. R., editor of Gospel of 
Peter, 152. 
on the Acts of John, 343. 


INDEX 


_ Jannaris on Eusebius, H. £., iii. 3, 
239. 

Jerusalem, visits to, 42. 

Jewish Quarterly Review on the hypoth- 
esis of Chwolson, 49, 50. 

Jews not reckoned among the ἔθνη in 

the Gospel, 416. 
represented as persecutors, 231. 
said to be wrong in calculations 
for the Passover, 492, 494. 

** Jews, feasts of the,” in the Gospel, 
416. 

‘* Jews, the,” in the Gospel, 416. 

John the Apostle, argument against 

presence of, in Asia, 214. 
Asiatic John, 207. 
character of, 409. 
conclusion that attack on tradition 
of Asiatic residence has failed, 
235. 
his bitter experiences, 415. 
his monument in Ephesus, 223. 
reasons for his practice in regard 
to the Passover, 512. 
relation to the Judaic party, 411. 
said to have been a Quartodeciman, 
480. 
John the Baptist, picture of, in the 
Gospels, 59. 
simply ‘‘John” in the Gospel, 
380. 
testimony of, 8. 
John the Presbyter distinct from the 
Apostle, 205. 
no evidence that he was ever in 
Asia, 223. 
not the Asiatic John, 206. 

John, First Epistle of, i. 1, 388. 

John, Gospel of, i. 14, 388; vii, 52, 
439; ΧΙ. 49, 437; xi. 51, 437 ; xviil. 
18, 437; xvili. 24, 436; xix. 35, 
388 ; xxi. 23, 387 ; xxi. 24, 260, 386. 

Jonah, 439. 

Josephus on the 

temple, 370. 
on the Sadducees, 356. 
reference to John the Baptist, 59. 
uses καθίζει transitively, 150. 

Judas the Galilean, 434. 

Judgment in John and 1 John, 173. 

Julias, 432. 

Justin Martyr, acquaintance with the 

Gospel, 84. 
antecedent probabilities, 84. 
applied philosophy to Johannine 
thought, 419. 
confirms Johannine tradition, 212. 
doctrine of Christ’s person, 107. 
God and man, 126. 
identified with the λόγος, 110. 


building of the 


521 


Justin Martyr, μονογενής, 134. 

pre-existed, 116, 120. 

Son of God in a peculiar sense, 
116. 

subject to suffering, 126. 

doctrine of the Logos: Logos 

active in history of Israel, 125. 

agent in creation, 123. 

distinct from the Father, 111. 

first-born of God, 110, 119. 

God, 109. 

incarnate through the Virgin, 
128. 

incarnation of, 125. 

not a creature, 117. 

occupies second place in the 
universe, 119. 

shared by all men, 124. 

subordinate to the Father, 112. 

those who lived with him were 
Christians, 124. 

whether co-eternal with the 
Father, 120. 

work of, previous to incarnation, 


123. 
doctrine of the Logos, based on 
an evangelical document, 132. 
expansion of that of the Gospel, 
129. 
language in which it is ex- 
pressed, 140. 
followed by Tertullian, 74, 84, 
269. 
God said to be without a name, 130. 
Gospel according to the Hebrews 
not one of his Memoirs, 100, 
Gospel, Fourth, probably among 
his Memoirs, 158; not improb- 
ably ascribed to John, 159; not 
treated with neglect, 34, 155. 
Gospel of Peter not the source of 
the passage about the judgment- 
seat, I51. 
harmonises the Gospel with the 
Synoptics, 129. 
indebtedness to Philo, 114, 144. 
λόγος, use of the word, 107. 
miraculous birth not related in his 
Logos-source, 139. 
on the time of the crucifixion, 499. 
passage about regeneration, 87 ; 
conclusion, 106 ; deviations from 
Johannine text, 88; deviations 
examined, 90; points of agree- 
ment with John, 96; resem- 
blance to John not accidental, 
98 ; similar to passage in Clem- 
entine Homilies, 88;  tradi- 
tional interpretation of passage 
in the Gospel, 97. 


“522 


Justin Martyr, quotation from Old 

Testament, 363. 

quotation of passage about the 
Baptist, 149; about seating 
Christ on the tribunal, 150. 

teaching of Christ, description of, 
16, 155. 

works, 85. 


Krim abandons argument founded on 
ignorance of Palestine, 430. 
adverse to Johannine authorship, 
70; to John’s account of the 
Last Supper, 53. 
on the date of John xxi., 260. 
on the evidence of Barnabas, 256. 
on the Presbyter John, 206. 
on the tradition of one year’s 
ministry, 47. 
Kenyon on _ the 
Apology, 85. 
Kessler referred to, 326. 
Kidron, 368. 
Kingstown, 432. 
Kirchner referred to, 52. 
Klopper on the desire to exalt John, 


date of Justin’s 


396, 
on John xix., 35, 389, 393; XXL, 
261, 388. 
Kostlin adverse to Johannine author- 
ship, 69. 
Kriiger on the date of Justin’s 


Apology, 85. 


LACTANTIUS says God is without a 
name, 131. 
view of the duration of Christ’s 
ministry, 46. 
Lamb, blessing for, at Easter, 456. 
partaken of by Pope and Cardinals, 


457. 
use of, at Easter, 455. 
Lambert, J. C., on the Last Supper, 


Ἐς 

Lambs, wax, at Easter, 457. 

Laodicea, 451. 

‘* Last day ” in John and 1 John, 172, 

Lazarus, raising of, 10, 62, 379, 426. 

Leo, Brother, referred to, 260. 

Leucius Charinus, 343. 

Lewin on the date of the nativity and 
the crucifixion, 253. 

Liechtenhan on the Acts of John, 344. 
Lightfoot, conjectural emendation of 
Georgius Hamartolus, 229. 

defended Johannine authorship, 


71. 

on the date of the Epistle of 
Clement, 216; of 1 John, 176; 
of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 188. 


INDEX 


Lightfoot on the deviations πἰ the — 


Gospel from the LXX., 


on the genuineness of the ‘Distle to 


Philomelium, 212. 
on the Ignatian Epistles, 182. 
on the Ignatian forger and the 
Apostolical Constitutions, 183. 
on the interpretation of John xiv. 
2 by the Elders, 247 ; of Papias’ 
Preface, 199. 
on the meaning of ‘‘the Pres- 
byter ” applied to John, 206. 
on a mistake about the martyrdom 
of Papias, 195. 
on the palm-branches, 367. 
on the πέταλον, 210. 
on Philip of Hierapolis, 227. 
on Polycarp’s Epistle, 180. 
on ‘‘ the Prophet,” 354. 
on the sects in the Gospel, 356. 
on the silence of Eusebius, 238. 
on the statement that Papias wrote 
the Gospel from the dictation of 
John, 250. 
on the style of the Gospel, 360. 
on the time of building the temple, 
371. 
referred to, 352. 
refutes conjecture of Overbeck’s, 
229. 
suggests origin of the name Alogi, 
336. 
Lipsius, editor of apocryphal Acts, 344. 
on the date of Xystus, 449. 
on Hippolytus, 275. 
on Irenzus, 276. 
on Valentinus, 265. 
Lisburn, 432. 
Lisnagarvey, 432. 
Lock on Wendt, 404. 
Logia, Matthew’ S, 403. 
Liicke on the last ORs of the 
Gospel, 388. 
on Siloam, 373. 
on Weisse, 404. 
referred to, 16, 68, 210, 342. 
Ludolphus de Saxonica on a misplace- 
ment in the Gospel, 407. 
Luthardt defends Johannine author- 
ship, 69. 


MABILLON on the Ordo Romanus, 457- 
Macaulay quoted, 29. 
Machiavelli, 29. 
Mansel on the transcendence of God in 
Gnosticism, 329. 
Marcion, argument that he was un- 
acquainted with the Gospel, 
288. 
date of, 286. 


i 
᾿ 
, 


4 INDEX 523 


' Marcion, reasons for rejecting the | Montanists’ relation to the Alogi, 335. 


Gospel, 289. 
rejection of the Gospel, 241, 287. 
used only a mutilated Luke, 242, 
267, 286. 

Marcionites said to have used the 
Gospel, 291 ; thestatement examined, 
292. 

Martineau adverse to Johannine author- 

ship, 71. 

against ascribing I John to the 
Evangelist, 164. 

on the date of the Clementine 
Homilies, 263. 

on the evidence of Barnabas, 256. 

on. ‘‘the high priest that year,” 
437. 

on the ignorance of Palestine 
shown by the Gospel, 430. 

on Irenzus’ account of the Valen- 
tinians, 282. 

on John vii. 52, 439; on xix, 
35, 389 ; on xxi. 23, 24, 386. 

on ‘‘the Jews” in the Gospel, 416. 

on Luke xi. 49, 45. 

on the Paschal controversy, 444. 

seeming ignorance of the Gospel, 
259. 

thinks Marcion was unacquainted 
with the Gospel, 288. 

Μάρτυς of doubtful meaning, 231. 

Martyrologies, nature and origin of, 
232. 

Martyrology, Hieronymian, 232. 

Martyrology, Roman, on Aristion, 198, 

205. 
on Papias, 198. 

Martyrology, Syrian, on the martyr- 
dom of James and John, 232. 

Matthias, alleged author of secret 
doctrines, 300, 303. 

M‘Clellan on the Last Supper, 52, 


495. 
Melito, a Quartodeciman, 210, 448. 
referred to, 191. 
wrote a work on the Passover, 
450, 509. 
Memory, nature of, 427. 
Meyer defends Johannine authorship, 
6 


9. 
on Johniii, 4, 103. 
Miltiades, 269. 
Ministry, duration 
Christ’s, 7. 
Miracles, 9, 426. 
Miraculous birth omitted, 11. 
Mishna on executions at feasts, 55. 
Mommert on Aenon, 369. 
Mommsen on the reading ‘‘ disciples 
of the Lord” in Papias, 198. 


and scene of 


treatment of the Passover, 469. 
Morin referred to, 442. 
Muratorian Fragment connects 1 John 
with the Gospel, 176. 
testimony about authorship of the 
Gospel, 75. 


NAASSENI, 332. 

Nablous, 369. 

Nahum, 439. 

Nerses, 459. 

Nicetas, 463. 

Nicodemus, 4, 35. 

Nonnus’ paraphrase of John iii. 3, 91. 
Norris on a displacement in the Gospel, 


407. 
Matos on the Last Supper, 52. 
Novatians, some of, were Quartodeci- 
mans, 452. 
treatment of the Passover, 469. 


(EcUMENIUS AND ARETHAS, commen- 
tary of, quotes Papias, 236. 
Ophites, 332. 
Oratio ad Greecos, 82. 
Ordo Romanus for Easter, 456. 
Origen follows synoptic chronology of 
the Last Supper, 488. 
on heretical views of God, 292. 
on ‘‘the high priest that year,”438. 
on the martyrdom of John, 229. 
on the Ophites, 332. 
view of allegory in the Gospels, 33. 
view of duration of Christ’s minis- 
try, 46. 
Otto on Justin’s view of the origin of 
the Logos, 121. 
Overbeck refuted by Lightfoot, 229. 
thinks there was a spurious work of 
Papias, 228. 


PANIUM, 432. 
Papias, 194. 
account of the origin of Mark’s 
Gospel, 203. 
acquainted with the Apocalypse, 
236. 
acquainted with 1 John and I 
Peter, 237. 
alleged statement that James and 
John were put to death by the 
Jews, 228, 
date, 195. 
hands down interpretation of John 
Rav. 2, 2a5i 
life, 194. 
meaning of the passage about 
Aristion and the Presbyter John, 


199. 


524 


Papias, origin of tradition about the 
vines, 222. 
said to have attested the author- 
ship of the Gospel, 249. 
says nothing of John in Asia, 225. 
sources of his work, 197. 
work, character, title, and date of, 
195. 
Papirius, a Quartodeciman, 210, 448. 
Paraclete in John and 1 John, 168, 
179. 
Parusia in John and 1 John, 170. 
Paschal Chronicle adopts the Johannine 
chronology of the Last Supper, 


502- 
date of, 461. 
error about Papias, 195. 
on the date of Christ’s death, 501. 
on the deaths of John and Clement, 
216. 
on the law of the Passover, 461, 
482. 
on the meaning of the Passover, 
473: 
on the postponement of the cele- 
bration of the Passover, 485. 
treats the high priest’s office as 
annual, 437. 
Paschal controversy, 444. 
Alexandrian practice, 450, 480. 
alleged bearing on the authorship 
of the Gospel, 444, 486, 507. 
arguments in, 480; appeal to 
tradition, 480; appeal to the 
Jewish law, 481 ; reasons for not 
keeping the feast on the four- 
teenth, 483 ; summary of, 500. 
history of, 447. 
matters in dispute, 449, 451, 454, 
463, 464, 480, 490. 
no sien to Gospel chronology, 
486. 
observance of fourteenth day by 
those who were not Quarto- 
decimans, 483, 484, 486. 
Palestinian tradition, 450, 481. 
Passover, Christian; the command- 
ment respected by the Church, 
- 461. 
a festival, 465. 
imported from Judaism, 452. 
a lamb slain by Christians, 455. 
meaning of, 473. 
not a commemoration of the Last 


Supper, 454. 
not the same as the Eucharist, 


449. 

not the same as the feast of the 
resurrection, 473. 

preceded by a fast, 449, 469. 


INDEX 


Passover, Christian ; preceded by a vigil, © 


472. 
the principal festival, 453. 
the Roman practice, 456. 
Πάσχα, meaning of, 474. 

Paul, Dr Ludvig, on the relation be- 
tween the Gospel and Justin, 161. 
Pausanias on the Lake of Tiberias, 

367. 
Perate, 332. 
Pesach, 52. 
Πέταλον said to have been worn by 
John, 209. 
Peter the Apostle, confession of, 8. 
position of, in the Gospel, 395. 
relation of, to the Gentiles, 414. 


Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, appealed to © 


about the Passover, 502. 
quotes Trecentius, 477. 
Peter, Apocalypse of, 237. 
Peter, Gospel of, not one of Justin’s 
Memoirs, 151. 
Peter, Preaching of, 237. 
Petronius Honoratus, 85. . 
Philip the Apostle said to be con- 
founded with the Evangelist, 
226. 
said to have been ἃ Quartodeciman, 


480. 
Philip in Hierapolis, 209. 
said to have been a Quartodeciman, 
508. 
Philip of Side, 196, 229. 
Philo, an allegorist, 428. 
appealed to about the Passover, 


502. 
designates God as pure Being, 329. 
his doctrine in Justin Martyr, 114, 


144. 
on the literal and symbolical sense, 


relation of, to the Gospel, 24. 
style contrasted with John’s, 360, 
418. 
Photius, 501. 
Plato on the transcendence of ‘‘ the 
good,” 329. 
picture of Socrates, 397. 
Plotinus on the transcendence of ‘‘ the 
unit,” 329. 

Plumptre on the πέταλον, 209. 
Polycarp, alleged interpretation of 
Matthew xx. 22, 23, 234. 
apparent reference to I John, 189. 
called Marcion ‘‘ first-born of 

Satan,” 186. 
connection with John, 208. 
date of martyrdom of, 188. 


describes the character of Presby- 


ters, 187. 


INDEX 


Polycarp, Epistle of, 180 ; genuineness, 
180 ; attacked by Cotterill, 183 ; 
defended, 185. 

importance of, 191. 

possible allusion to the Gospel, 
191. 

a Quartodeciman, 448. 

quotes I Peter, 186, 238. 

visited Rome, 449, 480. 

Polycrates on Quartodeciman practice, 
448, 464, 479. 

said to be mistaken about John, 
219. 

___ testimony about John in Asia, 209. 

Porphyry, 341. 

Portarlington, 432. 

Porter, J.S., 432. 

Pothinus, 348. 

Power, M., on the Last Supper, 51. 

Pretorium, 373. 

Pratt, J., on the Last Supper, 51. 

Predictions in the Gospels, 39. 

Proculus, 269. 

Protevangelium, 377. 

Pseudo-Athanasius, quotation of John 

li. 3, 94. 

Pseudo-Tertullian, 481, 504. 

Ptolemeus accepted the 
John’s, 270. 

letter of, to Flora, 271. 
quoted the Gospel, 270, 282. 
thought the ministry of Jesus 
lasted only one year, 487. 
a Valentinian, 266. 
Ptolemais, 432. 


Gospel as 


QUARTODECIMANS appealed to the 

Apostle John, 445. 

argument in support of their 
practice, 494. 

Catholics, 460. 

differed from the rest of the 
Church only about the day, 
464, 486. 

divided as to the day of the cruci- 
fixion, 511 ; as to the month of 
observance, 484. 

extent of, 448. 

kept the Passover as a feast, 468 ; 
in memory of the passion and 
resurrection, 477. 

mode of celebration of the Passover, 

63. 

nS ae of reliance on synoptic 
chronology, 486. 

some professed to keep the Pass- 
over on the day of the passion, 
510; and appealed to Acts of 
Pilate for the day of crucifixion, 
510. 


525 


Quartodecimans, statement that they 
relied on the synoptic chron- 
ology, 486. 

thought the Gospels infallible, 
ee 


REBAPTISMATE, DE, quotation of John 
ili. 8, 94. 
Repentance in the Gospel and 1 John, 
166. 
Reuss on the date of 1 John, 178, 
on the limits of the Prologue of 
the Gospel, 3. 
Revelation said to represent the 
Apostles as dead, 219. 
Réville, J., adverse to 
authorship, 71. 
against Johannine account of the 
Last Supper, 53. 
on the dependence of John on the 
Synoptics, 16. 
on the meeting of the Sanhedrin 
at the Passover, 56. 
thinks the author of the Gospel 
imbued with Alexandrian phil- 
osophy, 24. 
thinks Marcion would have used 
the Gospel, 289. 
Roberts defends transitive meaning of 
ἐκάθισεν in John xix, 18, 150. 
Robinson, J. A., editor of Gospel of 
Peter, 152. 


Johannine 


SABBATIUS referred to, 482. 
Sagaris martyred, 451, 509. 
a Quartodeciman, 210, 448, 451. 
Salim, 369. 
Salmon, Dr, defends Johannine author- 


ship, 71. 

on the Apocalypse, 442. 

on the arguments that the 
Presbyter was the Asiatic John, 
214. 


on astronomical calculations of 
date of crucifixion, 58. 
on the preface of Papias, 199. 
suggests that a forger imposed on 
Hippolytus, 316. 
thinks the Elder the same as the 
Apostle John, 205. 
Salome, 376. 
Samaria, 433. 
Samaritans, 354, 355, 368. 
Sanday, Dr, defends Johannine author- 
ship, 71. 
referred to, 352. 
Schick on the Pool of Bethesda, 372. 
Schleiermacher defends Johannine 
authorship, 68. 
Schmid, W., 188. 


526 


Schmidt, Carl, on the Acts of John, 


44. 
Scholten adverse to Johannine author- 
ship, 69. 
on the Presbyter John, 206. 
Schiirer abandons argument founded 
on ignorance of Palestine, 430. 
on the Alogi, 334. 
on Apollinaris, 508. 
on the character of John and of 
the Gospel, 409. 
on the dependence of the Gospel 
on the Synoptics, 16. 
on the deviations from the LXX., 
63. 
Ὡς the duration of uncleanness, 


53- 

on the education of John, 350. 

on Eusebius’ reply to the Quarto- 
decimans, 493. 

on external evidence, 346. 

on Franke, 357. 

on John i. 11, 289, 358. 

on the philosophical training of 
the author of the Gospel, 418. 

on the use of a lamb at the Pass- 
over, 455- 

referred to, 52, 71. 

Schwartz on the reading in Eusebius, 

H. E., iii. 3, 239. 

on the reading in Papias’ preface, 


198. 
on the title of Papias’ work, 195. 
Schwegler adverse to Johannine 
authorship, 69. 
Scythianus, 326, 328. 
Σημεῖα in the Gospel, 402. 
Semisch on Justin’s view of the origin 
of the Logos, 121. 
thinks Justin regarded the Logos 
as a creature, 117. 
Serapion, 509. 
Servilius Paulus, 451, 509. 
Sethians, relation of, to the account of 
Basilides, 317, 325. 
Severus of Antioch, 185. 
Severus on the day of the 
Supper, 497. 
Shammai, 55. 
Shepherd of Hermas, 76, 77. 
Sichra, 433. 
Siloam, Pool of, 353, 372. 
Simon of Cyrene, 56. 
Smiles referred to, 432. 
Smith, G. A., on Sychar, 433. 
Socher, 433. 
Socrates doubts the value of Paschal 
tradition, 481. 
on a division among the Quarto- 
decimans, 484. 


Last 


INDEX 


Socrates on the fast before Easter, 


469. 


on the meaning of the Passover, 


475- 
on Quartodeciman practice, 463. 
Solomon’s porch, 370. 
Soter, 449. 
Sozomen, a narrative quoted, 473. 
on the meaning of the Passover, 
475. 
on Quartodeciman practice, 463. 
Speeches in the Gospel, 16, 34. 
Spitta, F., supports John’s account of 
the Last Supper, 53. 
Stahelin on the Gnostic sources of 
Hippolytus, 316. 
on the inconsistencies of Hip- 
polytus, 321. 
Steitz on the use of ἐκεῖνος, 391. 
Stewart on Wendt, 404. 
Stieren referred to, 266. 


Strabo, Walafrid, on the use of the 


lamb at the Passover, 456. 
Strayer on transposition of text in the 
Gospel, 353. 
Supernatural Religion adverse 
Johannine authorship, 71. 
referred to, 88. 
Supper, Last, date of, 9, 47 ; arguments 
for and against Johannine date, 
53- 
omission in account of, 10, 
Swete on the Gospel of Peter, 153. 
Sychar, 369, 433. 
Symmachus, 365. 


TALMUD, tradition of date of Christ’s 
death in the, 56. 
Tatian, date and works, 82. 
quotes the Gospel, 82. 
re-arrangement of the 
O 


405. . 
the structure of the Diatessaron, 


406. 
Tayler, J. J., adverse to Johannine 

authorship, 69. 

on Andrew in the Muratorian 
Canon, 79. 

on the Armenian Christians, 459. 

on the Catholic view of Easter, 
471. 

on Justin’s description of Christ’s 
speeches, 156. 

on the Paschal controversy, 446, 


460, 467. 
Taylor, C., on the Shepherd of Hermas, 
255. 
refutes Cotterill on Polycarp, 188. 


Gospel, — 


to” 


suggests reading in the Gospel of © 


Peter, 152. 


INDEX 


Teaching of Jesus, peculiarities of, in 
the Gospel, 12. 
Temple, building of, 370. 
cleansing of, 8, 61. 
Tertullian confirms the 
dition, 212. 
De Carne Christi, wrong inter- 
pretation corrected, 288. 
on the fast at Easter, 466. 
on the meaning of the Passover, 


477 .ΌῸὺ6ὄὃΣ Ἥἁ LA 
on the time of the: crucifixion, 


Asiatic tra- 


499. 
on Valentinus, 268. 
quotation of John iii. 3, 90, 92, 
94, 95, 96. 
reading of John i. 13, 146. 
says there was a time when the 
Son did not exist, 120. 
testimony about authorship of the 
Gospel, 74. 
view of duration of Christ’s min- 
istry, 46. 
wished to follow Justin, 74, 84, 
269. 
- Thackeray quoted, 392. 
Thayer referred to, 435. 
Theodoret on the Peratz, 332. 
on the Quartodecimans, 478. 
Theodorus of Mopsuestia, comment on 
John iii. 3, 97. 
Theodotion, 364. 
Theodotus, offshoot of the Alogi, 340. 
writings of, 272. 
Theophilus, accidental character of 
his reference to the Gospel, 131. 
the εἶδος of God unspeakable, 130, 
knew the Apocalypse, 240. 
silence of, 157. 
testimony about authorship of 
the Gospel, 75, 239. 
view of the Logos, 123. 
wrote a work against Hermogenes, 
240. 
wrote a work against Marcion, 240. 
Theophylact, commentary on John iii. 
3, 97, 102; on Matthew xx. 22, 
23, 234. 
paraphrase of John iii. 3, 93. 
Third person used of themselves by 
authors, 390. 
Thoma on Justin’s doctrine of the 
divine Sonship of Christ, 136, 
137, 138. 
thinks the Fourth Gospel was not 
one of Justin’s Memoirs, 158; 
and was believed by him to be of 
other than apostolic authorship, 
160. 
Thraseas, a Quartodeciman, 210, 448. 


527 


Tiberias, Sea of, 366. 

Tischendorf, reading in John iii. 5, 94. 

Traditional view of authorship of the 
Gospel, 67 ; estimate of its weight, 
79. 

Trecentius on the meaning of the 
Christian Passover, 477. 

Tregelles on the Muratorian Canon, 78. 

Tulloch quoted, 32. 

Turner, C. H., on those who rejected 
the Gospel (in Irenzus), 335. 


UNIVERSALISM of the Gospel, 35. 
Urban V., referred to, 458. 


VALENTINIANS, eastern school accepted 
the Gospel, 272. 
thought the Gospel allegorical, 284. 
two schools of, 266, 280. 
used arbitrary interpretations, 283. 
used most copiously the Gospel of 
John, 267. 
view of duration of Christ’s minis- 
try, 46, 487. 
western school accepted the Gospel, 
270. 
Valentinus, argument against his know- 
ledge of the Gospel, 282. 
evidence of his use of the Gospel, 
267, 273. 
life of, 265. 
treatment of, by Hippolytus, 277. 
Victor and the Quartodecimans, 209, 
448, 479. 
Victorinus of Pettau, chiliasm of, 236. 
on the dates of the nativity, bap- 
tism, and crucifixion, 253. 
Vigil before Easter, 472. 
Volkmar adverse to Johannine author- 
ship, 69. 
on the date of Justin’s works, 85. 
on fleshly apologists, 105. 
on the passage about regeneration 
in the Clementine Homilies, 89. 
thinks the Gospel borrowed from 
Justin, 100. 
Von der Goltz on the evidence of 
Ignatius, 258. 
Voss, editor of Ignatius, 181. 
Vulgate rendering of John iii. 5, 92. 


Wand! Far‘Au, 369. 
Wadi Selim, 370. 
Watkins defends Johannine author- 
ship, 71. 
Weiss on the last chapter of John, 388, 
on a passage in Hegesippus, 217. 
Weisse on Johannine ‘‘ Studien,” 404. 
Weizsicker on John xxi. 23, 387. 
on mediate authorship, 70, 396. 


528 


Weizsicker on the pervading doctrine 
of the Gospel, 354. ./ 
on the speeches in the Gospel, 37. 
thinks the portrait of Jesus could 
not be by a personal friend, 


420. 
Wendt defends Johannine account of 
the Last Supper, 53. 
defends the visits to Jerusalem, 42. 
referred to, 71. 
theory of composite origin of the 
Gospel, 399. 

Westcott, classification of quotations 
from the Old Testament in the 
Gospel, 365. 

defends Johannine authorship, 71. 

on identity of authorship of the 
Gospel and 1 John, 163. 

on John xiii. 23, 395; xxi. 23, 
388. 

on the name Kidron, 368. 

on resemblances to the Synopties 
in the Gospel, 16. 

referred to, 352. 


INDEX 


Westcott thinks the crucifixion was on > 


Thursday, 58. 


tries to harmonise the Synoptics © 


and the Gospel in the account 
of the Last Supper, 48. 
Wiseman on Easter celebration, 458. 
Wordsworth and White, Novwm Testa- 
mentum, 249. 
Wright, W., edits Syrian Martyrology, 
239. 


XENOPHON, Anabasis quoted, 392. 
Memorabilia, 390, 422, 425. 
Xystus referred to, 449, 479, 480. 


ZAHN on the date of Tatian’s Oratio, 


83. 

referred to, 188. 

Zeller adverse to Johannine author- 

ship, 69. 

on the connection between John 
and Justin, 99. 

on the objection of Nicodemus, 
ΙΟΙ. 


δ 


PRINTED BY NEILL AND CO., LTD., EDINBURGH. 


EE EEE Ψ 


ΡῪ δα. ὙμΝΝ δι Α.. 2... 


%; hake 


ai ity 


ee 
Ae * 
AN ya Ait ἣ ἣν 


ve pra 


aaa 


Date Due 


pts 


ed ain 
- 


τ λα 


“yr, 


: a 
πῶ a 
᾿ . 7) 
age 


“ 


Wg 
“ἊΨ 


BS2615.4 .D79 
An inquiry into the character and 


Prince 


-1 1012 00069 6882 


to 


Ww 


